IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.15074 of 2006
Harbans Singh ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Govt of Haryana and others
...Respondent(s)
Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mz. Kirti Singh, AAG, Haryana for the respondents.
And
C.W.P.No.15858 of 2006
Amrik Singh and Another ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Govt of Haryana and others
...Respondent(s)
Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mz. Kirti Singh, AAG, Haryana for the respondents.
Date of decision: 23.10.2008
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
JASWANT SINGH,J
This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP
No.15074 of 2006 and CWP No.15858 of 2006 since common questions of
facts and law are involved in these petitions.
In CWP No.15074 of 2006
Harbans Singh-petitioner, Ex-Sarpanch of Village Gram
Panchayat Arnoli, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal (For short "Gram
Panchayat") has prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated 13.6.2006
(Annexure P.8) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal in exercise of
the powers under Section 51(3)(e) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
removing him from the office of Sarpanch with immediate effect, and the
appellate order dated 29.8.2006 (Annexure P.9) passed by the Financial
C.W.P.No.15074 of 2006 #2#
Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana,
Development and Panchayats, Panchayats Department, Chandigarh (For
Short "Financial Commissioner") whereby the appeal filed by him along
with the appeals filed by removed Panches Amrik Singh and Jaspal Singh
has been rejected against the removal order.
In CWP No.15858 of 2006
Two Panches namely Amrik Singh and Jaspal Singh of the said
Gram Panchayat have challenged the orders dated 08.6.2006 (Annexure P.6
& P.7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal in exercise of the
powers under Section 51(3)(e) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
removing them from the office of Panches and the appellate order dated
29.8.2006 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Financial Commissioner vide
which separate appeals filed by them along with the appeal filed by Harbans
Singh against the removal order were dismissed by a common order.
With the consent of the parties, the facts are being taken from
CWP No.15074 of 2006.
Facts
in brief are that in July 2003, the Forest Department,
under Social and Forest Scheme, over 8 hectares (20 acres) of Panchayat
land of Village Arnoli, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal (For short “the
Village”) planted 8800 eucalyptus plants by incurring expenditure of
Rs.1,90,920/- on plantation and proper maintenance of plants till April
2005. In April, 2005, elections to the new Gram Panchayat were held and
the petitioner Harbans Singh was elected as Sarpanch and Amrik Singh and
Jaspal Singh were elected as Panches of the Gram Panchayat. On
15.5.2005, the aforesaid planted trees, which had grown till 10 to 12 feet,
were cut by some residents of the Village with Axes in the presence of the
Sarpanch and the Panches and thereafter, tree stubs were set on fire to
destroy the evidence of cutting of the trees and this act was done with the
motive of restoring the panchayat land to the earlier illegal encroachers over
the same land, the possession of which was obtained in the year 2002 in
compliance of the order dated 27.12.2002 passed by this Court. A
complaint by the residents of the Village was made on 16.5.2005 to the
Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal. An FIR dated 21.5.2005 (Annexure P.4) in
C.W.P.No.15074 of 2006 #3#
this regard was also lodged by Ishwar Singh, Forest Guard against the
petitioner, Panches and other residents of the Village. Thereafter, Block
Development and Panchayat Officer, Guhla submitted a preliminary inquiry
report dated 1.6.2005 (Annexure R.4/T) in which he found that the
petitioner-Sarpanch Harbans Singh, other Panches and residents of the
Village had cut around 8/9,000 trees and thereafter put them on fire so as to
conceal the factum of theft. On the basis of the report dated 1.6.2005,
explanation of the Sarpanch and other Panches was called and after
considering their replies, they were suspended from the office of Sarpanch
and Panches and regular inquiry was entrusted to Sub Divisional Officer,
Guhla for their removal from the office of Sarpanch and Panches
respectively. The Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal also issued letters to the
Sarpanch and Panches for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,90,920/- for having
caused loss to the Gram Panchayat. The Inquiry Officer submitted his
report dated 13.4.2006 (Annexure P.7/A) in which allegations against the
Sarpanch and Panches were proved. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner,
Kaithal after following the due process of law vide impugned order dated
13.6.2006 exercising the powers under Section 51(3)(e) of Haryana
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ordered the removal of the petitioner Harbans
Singh from the office of Sarpanch. He also ordered the removal of Amrik
Singh and Jaspal Singh from the office of Panches vide separate order dated
8.6.2006. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner-Sarpanch Harbans Singh
as also Amrik Singh and Jaspal Singh filed separate appeals before the
Financial Commissioner, which have been dismissed by a common order
dated 29.8.2006.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to resolutions of
the Gram Panchayat dated 11.4.2003 (Annexure P.1), 19.4.2003 (Annexure
P.2) and 10.9.2004 (Annexure P.3), has argued that, in fact, the eucalyptus
trees planted earlier had already been destroyed due to lack of proper
maintenance and when the petitioner and the other Panches assumed their
office on 9.5.2005, there were no eucalyptus trees existing over the said
C.W.P.No.15074 of 2006 #4#
land, therefore, the whole action against the petitioner was motivated and
malafide and at the instance of the Ex-Sarpanch and Ex-Panches.
Learned State counsel has brought our attention to an
application ante-dated 13.5.2005 moved by the petitioner-Sarpanch before
the B.D.P.O, Guhla, District Kaithal, annexed as Annexure R.1 with the
written statement, in which the petitioner-Sarpanch Harbans Singh himself
admits that there were Safeda trees standing on the land. State counsel
argued that the application dated 13.5.2005 is mischievous and it was
actually submitted on 16.5.2005, after cutting down of the trees on
15.5.2005 and submission of complaint by the residents of the village to the
Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal on 16.5.2005, to cover their misdeed.
Learned State counsel has further argued that in view of Annexure R.1, the
reference to the resolutions Annexures P.1 to P.3 to show that no eucalyptus
trees existed on the said land was irrelevant. State counsel further argued
that it has been clearly established in the regular inquiry dated 13.4.2006
that in the aforesaid 8 hectares i.e 20 Acres, 8800 eucalyptus trees were
planted in July 2003, which existed till 15.5.2005 when these were cut down
by axes by the residents of the Village in connivance with the petitioner-
Sarpanch and other Panches.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we accept the
contention raised by learned counsel for the State. It is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-Sarpanch himself had
moved the application at Annexure R.1 wherein the existence of the
eucalyptus trees is admitted by him, therefore, the entire argument being
raised on behalf of the petitioner fails. We further find that after cutting
down of the trees on 15.5.2005 from the aforesaid 8 hectares (20 acres)
Panchayat land, the petitioner-Sarpanch and other Panches including Amrik
Singh and Jaspal Singh did not initiate any proceeding nor did they inform
any higher authorities except trying to cover up their action by writing ante
dated letter at Annexure R.1 to the B.D.P.O. It has also come on record that
the house of the Sarpanch is adjacent to the lands from where the said trees
were cut and, therefore, it is evident that it could not have happened without
the knowledge and connivance of the Sarpanch.
In view of the above, we find no legal infirmity in the
C.W.P.No.15074 of 2006 #5#
impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal whereby the
petitioner has been removed from the office of Sarpanch and Amrik Singh
and Jaspal Singh have been removed from the office of Panches as well as
appellate order whereby their appeal was dismissed, which warrants
interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
Both the writ petitions are dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH )
JUDGE
October 23, 2008 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
manoj JUDGE