Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.@mdashPetitioner has challenged the enquiry report dated 20.3.2013, which was initiated on the complaint of the petitioner against respondent No. 6. In the said enquiry, SDM-cum-SDO (Civil), Meham has found that the allegation made by the petitioner has not been found to be proved. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to respondent No. 10 to hold a fair enquiry; for removal of respondent No. 6 and initiation of criminal proceedings against all those persons including respondent No. 4, who has submitted the enquiry report. From the facts and circumstances of this case, I have found that the petitioner made a complaint against respondent No. 6 on which an enquiry was conducted by SDM-cum-SDO (Civil), Meham, who has found that the allegations made in the complaint are not proved. Aggrieved against the said enquiry report, present petition has been preferred.
2. It is categorically pointed out in the enquiry report that complainant was associated in the enquiry, who has stated that the allegation made by him against respondent No. 6 on 16.4.2012 be treated as his statement and proof attached with his complaint may be taken into consideration.
3. The opportunity was given to respondent No. 6, who filed his reply denying the allegations. The Enquiry Officer carried out the inspection on the complaint in the presence of both the parties and sought point-wise technical report from Sub Divisional Officer (Panchayati Raj), Lakhanmajra, regarding the allegations leveled against the Sarpanch. The SDO, (Panchayati Raj), Lakhanmajra vide his letter Sr. No. 3 dated 5.2.2013 has sent point-wise report regarding the complaint made by the petitioner on the basis of which the Enquiry Officer has held that no allegation has been proved against respondent No. 6
4. In view thereof, I am not inclined to interfere in the enquiry report. However, the petitioner may, if so advised, take up his other remedies, if available, in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed.
