Karam Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 August, 2009

CWP No. 9727 of 2009                                      [1]

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH


                                       CWP No. 9727 of 2009
                                       Date of Decision: 7.8.2009


Karam Singh and others
                                                          ..Petitioners


                         versus


State of Haryana and others
                                                        ..Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


Present :   Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate
            for the petitioner

            Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. A.G. Haryana
            for respondents No.1 to 4.

                               *****

T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a

direction against the respondents to initiate appropriate action against

respondent No.5 who happens to be the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat

Dhahar, District Panipat and who is alleged to have embezzled a large

amount of Panchayat funds. The petitioners case is that complaints filed

before the Deputy Commissioner against the Sarpanch having proved
CWP No. 9727 of 2009 [2]

futile leaves no option for the petitioner except to knock the door of this

Court. A mandamus directing the authorities to initiate action against

the delinquent Sarpanch has therefore been prayed for.

In response to a notice issued by the Court, the respondents

have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is inter-alia stated that the

delinquent Sarpanch had been removed by the respondent No.3 Deputy

Commissioner in terms of Section 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj

Act, 1995. Against the said order or removal, the aggrieved Sarpanch

preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner who set aside

the said order and directed that the amount of loss suffered by the

Panchayat ought to be quantified and recovered from the Sarpanch and

the Junior Engineer who were responsible for the same. Consequently,

the Deputy Commissioner appears to have quantified the amount of loss

and started recovery proceedings against the Sarpanch once again.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Sarpanch again approached the

Financial Commissioner in appeal to assail the quantification of loss.

The matter is now pending with respondent No. 1 who appears to have

stayed the recovery of the outstanding amount recoverable from the

Sarpanch.

Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the earlier direction issued by the Financial

Commissioner for recovery of the amount of loss caused by the

Sarpanch has been negated by the very same officer issuing a stay order

against such recovery. He further points out that the Sarpanch has

during the intervening period committed some further embezzlements,

regarding which a complaint has been made to the Deputy
CWP No. 9727 of 2009 [3]

Commissioner, on which the Deputy Commissioner does not appear to

have taken any action.

Mr. Malik, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana on the other

hand argued that the earlier order of Financial Commissioner had not

quantified the amount of loss which was to be undertaken by the Deputy

Commissioner. Since the Deputy Commissioner has quantified the

amount of loss, the aggrieved Sarpanch was entitled to question the

same before the Financial Commissioner. There was, therefore, no

impropriety on the part of the Financial Commissioner examining the

issue whether the quantification of loss was proper.

There is in our opinion merit in that submission. The

quantification of loss allegedly caused by the Sarpanch was not a matter

which was determined by the Financial Commissioner. That was a

matter to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the

earlier order. Once the quantification of loss has been undertaken, the

aggrieved party could prefer an appeal against the said quantification.

The Financial Commissioner therefore committed no impropriety in

entertaining the appeal. Whether or not the Sarpanch is liable to

reimburse any amount, if so, what is the said amount, is a matter, which

the Financial Commissioner is expected to examine in appeal. All that

we need say is that Financial Commissioner would do well to dispose

of the appeal expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of six

months from today.

As regards the allegation of further embezzlement

committed by respondent No.5, the matter is left to be examined by the

Deputy Commissioner for appropriate action in accordance with law.

CWP No. 9727 of 2009 [4]

Although the petitioner appears to have made certain representations,

copies whereof have been filed with the writ petition, Mr. Malik

submits that none of the said representations bear any date. In the

circumstances, it would be proper for the petitioner to file a proper

representation within four weeks from today addressed to the Deputy

Commissioner in which event the Deputy Commissioner would look

into the same also and pass appropriate orders expeditiously but not

later than six months. Thereafter, writ petition is with the above

observation and directions disposed of leaving the parties to bear their

own costs.

(T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
07.08.2009
‘ravinder’