ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen thus. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Sabha, Hassangarh, in Tehsil and District Rohtak, in the month of June, 1969, when the Director of Panchayats, Haryana, on the basis of a preliminary enquiry held by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Rohtak, recommended through a letter (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak (respondent No. 1) that a regular enquiry under Section 102(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be held against the petitioner. On the 5th of September, 1969, the Deputy Commissioner made an order (Annexure ‘B’ to the petition) under Section 102 (2) ibid directing an enquiry to be held by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohtak, against the petitioner on the following charges;
“1. That he sold saltpere for Rupees 5000/- during the year 1967-68, but accounted for only Rs. 1000/- and embezzled the balance. Similarly he sold saltpetre during the years 1965-66, 1966-67, without proper auction and caused heavy losses to the Panchayat.
2. That he has shown an exaggerated expenditure of Rs. 3000/- in roofing of a room of the Girls School building, whereas it would have hardly cost Rs. 1,500/- only. Hence heavy loss has been caused to the Panchayat by him by misappropriating the remaining amount.
3. That he misused/misappropriated the sale-proceeds of fish and did not account for in full the income from sale of fish.
4. That he did not deposit the income of the Gram Panchayat in the account of the Gram Panchayat opened with the Bank or post office, but misappropriated for his personal use.
5. That he has sold two irrigation wells of the Panchayat without the sanction of the competent authority.
6. That he did not show any interest in realisation of the arrears of the house-tax.
7. That the meeting of the Gram Sabha are not being held regularly after six months as provided under Section 113 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. Similarly, the meetings of the Gram Panchayat are also not being held regularly on 7th and 22nd of each month as resolved by the Panchayat.”
This order was complied with and, after holding the necessary enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) submitted his report dated the 14th August, 1970 (Annexure “C” to the petition) to the Deputy Commissioner. The gist of the report in so far as charges Nos. 1,2,3,5 and 7 are concerned is as under :
Charge No. 1 :
The petitioner acted in violation of the rules inasmuch as he did not auction the saltpetre every year but “has given it to any contractor who came. In case due auction was conducted the saltpetre could have been sold for much more amount. The Sarpanch is, therefore, guilty of causing loss to the Panchayat. Furthermore, he has not even maintained any auction register which is again in violation of the Government rules. This charge is, therefore, fully proved.”
Charge No. 2 :
An assessment of the total cost incurred in building the room was made by the Block Overseer at Rs. 4,035/0. The claim of the petitioner that he spent a sum of Rs. 3,500/- in roofing the room is apparently exaggerated. He has shown an inflated figure in this behalf and has misappropriated some money.
Charge No. 3
The Sarpanch in his statement admitted that the fish are sold every year though no auction is carried out and contract is given to any person who comes forward. This procedure is highly objectionable and there is every reason to believe that amount are misappropriated. The Sarpanch has no doubt produced receipts for the sale of fish. Exhibits DW/3, 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10. However, since there has been no auction there is always the possibility of receipt for a low amount being shown in the Panchayat record. In this case no auction register has been violated. This charge is, therefore, also proved against the Sarpanch.”
Charge No. 5
This charge was held not proved.
Charge No. 7
In his statement the Sarpanch has deposed that once or twice he called the meetings of the Gram Sabha but no one turned up. Similarly he also called Panchayat meeting around the second or 22nd as resolved by the Panchayat. This argument of the Sarpanch also is fallacious that no one turned up. It is clear that he has shown certain frivolousness in the way of dealing towards the Panchayat matters and that he has made no efforts to call the meetings of the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat at the prescribe time. As such this charge is also proved.”
On the 31st of August, 1970, the Deputy Commissioner issued to the petitioner a final show-cause notice (Annexure “D” to the petition) which may be quoted in extenso :
“Whereas I, Tirlochan Singh, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, am satisfied on the examination of the enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohtak, received in this office, vide his No. 3114/RSD. Dated 14-3-1970 (copy enclosed) that you (Shri Ram Sarup Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Hassangarh) are guilty of the charges levelled against you in the charge-sheet, a copy of which was sent to you vide this office endst. No. 5044-47/DS dated 5-9-1969.
Your are, therefore, called upon to explain as to why you should not be removed under Section 102(2) and further disqualified under Section 102(3) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 on the established facts for a period of three years. Your explanation, if any, should reach this office within 15 days of the receipt of this notice failing which it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and action for your disqualification and removal from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Hassangarh will be taken against you according to rules.”
The petitioner submitted his reply to this notice but the Deputy Commissioner removed him from the office of Sarpanch and disqualified him for re-election to the Panchayat for a period of three years by an order (Annexure “E” to the petition) which, after stating the charges which were enquired into, proceeds thus:
“The enquiry into all allegations was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Rohtak under Section 102 (2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, the Sarpanch was given a final show-cause notice with a copy of enquiry report, in response to that his explanation was considered and found unsatisfactory.”
And then follows the direction regarding removal and disqualification. It is this order that is impugned in the petition on various grounds, only the following three of which have been urged before me by Mr. Gaur appearing on behalf of the petitioner :
(a) The proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner solely in pursuance of the letter received by him from the Director of Panchayats (Annexure “A” to the petition) and not because he (the Deputy Commissioner) was himself satisfied about the necessity of an enquiry.
(b) In coming to the finding with regard to Charge No. 2, the Enquiry Officer relied upon the report of the Block Overseer regarding assessment of the cost of the building. The assessment was made behind the back of the petitioner and the Overseer was never produced as a witness during the course of the enquiry. The finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No. 2 was, therefore, vitiated as also the impugned order which was based on an acceptance of that findings.
(c) The Deputy Commissioner did not apply his mind to the merits of the case at any stage and merely dittoed the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer without caring to judge whether they were based on proper material. Further the impugned order is not a speaking order inasmuch as it does not detail either the points raised by the petitioner in reply to the charge-sheet as also the final show-cause notice or the reasons why the same were not liable to acceptance or were considered unsatisfactory.
2. The first two grounds are without substance. There is no provision of law or principle of natural justice which debars the Deputy Commissioner from launching an enquiry under Section 102 (2) of the Act on the basis of material placed before him by the Director of Panchayat, or, for that matter, by anybody else. It is certainly not required that the Deputy Commissioner must himself fish out the evidence against a delinquent Sarpanch before an enquiry can be instituted against the latter.
In so far as the consideration of the Block Overseer’s report by the Enquiry Officer is concerned, I find that in his objections to the findings of that officer in his report dated the 14th of August, 1970 (Annexure “C” to the petition) no objection was at all taken either to the assessment of the cost of the room in question made by the Block Overseer or to the propriety of the report being considered as evidence. Not having taken such objections at the proper stage, the petitioner cannot be allowed to urge them in these proceedings.
3. Although grounds (a) and (b) must thus be repelled, ground (c), in my opinion, must prevail. It is conceded on behalf of the respondents that the impugned order is a quasi-judicial order. If that be so, it has also to be what is commonly described as a “speaking order”, that is, an order which gives atleast an outline of the process of reasoning by which the decision contained in it is reached (The State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram Patanga, 71 Pun LR 625 = (AIR 1970 Punj 9) (FB), Gurbaksh Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1970 Pun LJ 500, and Mehar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1970 Pun LJ 695, Mr. Ashok Bhan,) learned counsel for the respondents ha no quarrel with this proposition of law which he concedes. He urges, however, that when read in conjunction with the order dated the 31st of August, 1970, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure “D” to the petition), the impugned order must be regarded as a speaking order. in this connection he relies on the first paragraph of the order dated the 31st of August, 1970, for the submission that the Deputy Commissioner had examined the report of the Enquiry Officer, was satisfied about its correctness and on the basis thereof held the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled in the show-cause notice dated the 5th of September, 1969, and that he said order dated the 31st of August, 1970m must be deemed to adopt there reasons given by the Enquiry Officer for holding various charges proved against the petitioner. Even if the perusal and adoption of the Enquiry Officer’s report by the Deputy Commissioner amounted to such consideration of the case against the petitioner as the law requires, I am firmly of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner did not perse the said report or that if he did, then he gave it no consideration worth the name, and endorsed it mechanically. My reasons for coming to this conclusion appear below.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, in his order dated the 31st of August, 1970, holds the petitioner guilty ” of the charges levelled against you in the charge-sheet.” Apparently the word “charges”, just above quoted means all the charges contained in the charge-sheet. As stated earlier, the Enquiry Officer specifically came to the conclusion that Charge No. 5 contained in the charge-sheet was not proved. In stating that the petitioner was guilty of (all) the charges levelled against him, the Deputy Commissioner clearly went against the Enquiry Officer’s report and if he, in passing the order dated the 31st of August, 1970, gave effect merely to that report, it must be held that he had o read its contends.
In the enquiry report it was specifically mentioned at the end of the discussion of the evidence in relation to each charge (except charge No. 5) that the same stood proved. A perusal of the report, however, clearly shows that the first part of charge No. 1, charge No. 3 and charge No. 7 were as a matter of fact not established before the Enquiry Officer. The first part of charge No. 1 relates to the embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 4,000/- by the petitioner. there is not a word in the enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of such embezzlement. On the contrary, the evidence discussed by the Enquiry Officer in relation to the allegation under consideration was to the effect that the entire sum of the saltpere contract for the year 1967-68 was paid by the contractor although this was done after protracted correspondence. Nothing is said by the Enquiry Officer about the withholding of this amount by the petitioner from the Panchayat funds even for a moment. The erroneous averment by the Enquiry Officer that he found charge No. 1 as fully proved was adopted by the Deputy Commissioner as it stook and without detection of error, a situation which would surely not have arisen had the Deputy Commissioner given any real consideration to the Enquiry Officer’s report.
In relation to charge No.3, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was that no auction register had been maintained and that usual procedure had been violated. There was no material whatsoever on the record prepared by him indicating that the petitioner had received amounts in excess of those covered by receipts Exhibits DW/3-10 and the proof of the alleged misappropriation consisted merely of a belief of the Enquiry Officer flowing from the violation of procedure of which the petitioner was held guilty. The amount misused or misappropriated was neither determined nor was determinable on the evidence available. Had the Deputy Commissioner scrutinised the discussion of evidence by the Enquiry Officer with regard to charge No. 3 , he could not have failed to note that the charge had remained in reality unproved.
The conclusion of the Enquiry Officer regarding charge No. 7 that it stands proved is based on no evidence at all. The petitioner claimed that he had been regularly calling meetings of the Panchayat. The entire basis for the Enquiry Officer turning down the claim was “that he has shown certain frivolousness in the way of dealing towards the Panchayat matters and that he has made no efforts to call the meetings of the Gram Sabha and the Gram Panchayat at the prescribed time”. This basis does not consist of evidence but of a conclusion of the Enquiry Officer from some material of which the details are unknown. It may even be that there was no such material forthcoming and that the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of failure to call meetings merely because such was the averment made in the charge. Had the Deputy Commissioner applied his mind to that part of the report which dealt with charge No. 7, he would surely not have failed to see that the charge was not substantiated by any evidence.
5. In the result, I hold that the order of the Deputy Commissioner removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch and disqualifying him for re-election to the Panchayat (Annexure “E” to the petition) coupled with that passed by him on the 31st of August, 1970 (Annexure “D” to the petition) is not a speaking order and is liable to be struck down for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner failed to apply his mind to the report of the Enquiry Officer and to come to a decision of his own, albeit a decision adopting the said report, and hereby quash the same. The parties are, however left to bear their own costs.
6. Petition allowed.