IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.5872 of 2011
RUDAL RAI .
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .
-----------
2/ 08/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is the Up Mukhiya, Tikarampur
Panchayat, Munger aggrieved by the order dated
26.11.2010 of the Secretary, Department of Panchayati
Raj, under Section-18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj
Act, 2006 unseating him from that post.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the impugned order relies upon the comments
furnished by the District Magistrate on the cause shown
by the petitioner. The same was not made available to
the petitioner to meet what may have been stated
therein. He has therefore been condemned by taking
into consideration evidence behind his back which was
in violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
It is next submitted that the petitioner has
been singled out alone when in his show cause he has
specifically stated that the withdrawal of money and
execution of the works was not attributable to him
alone.
Learned counsel for the State points out from
2
the impugned order that the Mukhiya has also been
proceeded against. It is next submitted that in his reply
to the show cause notice the petitioner made no specific
denial of the allegations, but gave an evasive reply that
he was not liable alone.
The contention of the petitioner that till the
criminal adjudication, the impugned order pre-judges
the whole issue, does not appeal to the Court. The
standard of proof in the criminal trial shall be entirely
different from the present proceedings. The ground of
natural justice also does not appeal to the Court. What
natural justice may mean shall depend on the given
facts of a case. Once the facts are not in dispute,
natural justice cannot be insisted upon as an empty
formality when it is apparent that even after compliance
of the same the conclusion would remain unchanged.
The impugned order fairly notices that after institution
of the First Information Report against the amount
withdrawn Rs.13,79,700/- certain works had been
done, but there still remained an outstanding of
Rs.6,85,499/-
These facts have not been denied in the writ
petition. The other charges are a fall out of the criminal
prosecution instituted on the aforesaid ground leading
to his absconding, affecting public works etc.
3
Once the charges are not denied for what is
alleged as misappropriation of public money meant for a
public scheme, the Court is satisfied that the present
case on its facts does not call for any interference.
The writ application stands dismissed.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)