Harnaryan vs State of Haryana and others

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated

18.06.2015 (Annexure P-6) on the basis of the inquiry report dated

24.10.2013 (Annexure P-3), whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad

had arrived at a conclusion that as per the report of the District Welfare

Officer, Faridabad, Shri Satveer son of Shri Baljit Singh and Smt. Indera

Wati wife of Baljit Singh were guilty of getting prepared the BPL Ration

Cards by giving the wrong facts and received the benefits of the grants from

the Government under certain scheme, much less, the petitioner, namely,

Harnaryan, Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, for wrongly verifying the

aforementioned grants.

Mr. A.S. Virk, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that in the aforementioned inquiry report, the petitioner

was never associated in preparation of the list and therefore, the question of

wrong verification did not arise. He has drawn the attention of this Court

to the order dated 14.07.2015, whereby the learned counsel for the State was

directed to obtain the necessary instructions and make a statement in this

regard.

In paragraph 11 of status report dated 31.07.2015 filed by way

of an affidavit of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faridabad, the following

averments have been made:-

"11. That the petitioner was not associated during survey for identification of BPL beneficiaries conducted in the year 2007. Further on the date of disbursement of social scheme Indra Gandhi Priyadarshani Shagun Yojan payment of Rs. 62,000/- were paid on 07.06.2010 and payment of Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 35,000/- were paid under the Indra Awas Yojna on 07.01.2009 and 29.01.2009. Shri Satbir son of Baljit was holding the BPL Card during the disbursement of payment under the above mentioned schemes in the year 2009 and 2010."

In view of the aforementioned facts, it is seen that the petitioner

during the survey for identification of the BPL beneficiaries conducted in

the year 2007 was not associated in preparation of the list, thus, the report of

the Deputy Commissioner is totally off the record, in essence, the genesis

was totally misplaced, therefore, the consequential effect of the inquiry i.e.

Initiation of the FIR etc., is without jurisdiction.

The factum of the affidavit is not disputed by Mr. Rajbir Singh,

AAG, Haryana.

Keeping in view the aforementioned fact that the petitioner has

not been found to have been associated in preparing the list during the

survey for identification of the BPL beneficiaries conducted in the year

2007, the impugned order dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure P-6) viz-a-viz the

petitioner is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside, much less, all

the consequential proceedings

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands allowed.