IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.4822 of 2008
Date of Decision: 21.11.2008
Shivpal Singh
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF
JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Mr.Manohar Lall, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Addl. A.G. Haryana
for respondent Nos.1 to 4
Mr.Jaivir Yadav, Advocate
Jasbir Singh, J.
Petitioner, by filing this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, has prayed that respondent No.2 be directed to
take disciplinary action, under Section 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj
Act, 1994, for removing the respondent Nos.5 and 6 from the posts of
Sarpanch and Panch respectively, of village Dahina, Tehsil and District
Rewari. It is further prayed that action be taken against some other Panches
also, against whom allegation of misuse of power has been levelled.
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were elected as Sarpanch and Panch
of village Dahina in the year 2005. Against them, it was allegation of the
petitioner that they had mis-conducted in the discharge of their official
Civil Writ Petition No.4822 of 2008 2
duties, got passed some resolution without issuance of notice for meeting to
many Panches and also that respondent No.5 has used inferior quality of
material for executing various development works in the village. When
representations made, for the above said purpose failed to yield any result,
the petitioner came to this Court by filing CWP No.16709 of 2007, which
was disposed of on 31.10.2007, by issuing directions to the official
respondents therein, to complete regular enquiry against respondent Nos.5
and 6 within eight weeks, from the date of passing of above said order.
When nothing was done, petitioner was compelled to file COCP No.207 of
2008, for initiating contempt proceedings against the Deputy Commissioner,
Rewari for showing willful disobedience to the order passed by this Court
on 31.10.2007. However, subsequent thereto, during pendency of this writ
petition, it appears that above said contempt petition was disposed of by this
Court. In this writ petition also, the petitioner has reiterated the allegations
which he had levelled against respondent Nos.5 and 6 in his earlier writ
petition, as referred to above.
Upon notice, reply has been filed by Rajinder Singh, Block
Development and Panchayat Officer, Jatusana, District Rewari, wherein it
has been submitted that to enquire into the allegations levelled against
respondent Nos.5 and 6, a regular enquiry was instituted under an order
passed by respondent No.2. On receipt of enquiry report, notice was issued
to respondent Nos.5 and 6, asking them to show cause as to why action be
not taken against them under relevant provisions of the Act.
On receipt of reply and after giving personal hearing,
respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari, directed them to
remain careful in future. A copy of the enquiry report has been brought on
record as Annexure R-1 along with the affidavit dated 16.9.2008, filed by
Civil Writ Petition No.4822 of 2008 3
Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Jatusana.
Counsel for the parties heard.
Mr.Manohar Lall, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has
vehemently contended that the enquiry conducted, is not satisfactory. The
authorities have failed to take action against respondent Nos.5 and 6,
despite mis-conduct and embezzlement committed by them. He argued that
fresh departmental enquiry be ordered and after ascertaining the facts,
respondent Nos.5 and 6 be removed from the posts of Sarpanch and Panch
respectively, as per law.
Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Shri Rameshwar
Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. He, by making reference to
the enquiry report (Annexure R-1), stated that the allegations against
respondent Nos.5 and 6 were not very serious. He has further stated that as
per record, demarcation was ordered with regard to encroachment, stated to
have been made by respondent No.6 and if after demarcation, it is found so,
action as per law, will be initiated. Counsel further argued that once after
enquiry, respondent No.2 has warned respondent No.5 to remain careful in
future, no further action is necessary. He prayed that writ petition be
dismissed.
After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that
no further action needs to be taken in this writ petition.
Record reveals that against respondent Nos.5 and 6, regular
departmental enquiry was conducted to look into the following charges
against them:-
“1. That the Sarpanch has held the auction of Shamlet land
plots on 28.5.2005 and 8.6.2005 in the absence of the
Extension Officer. Besides it, the auction which has
Civil Writ Petition No.4822 of 2008 4been conducted by the Sarpanch on 15.6.2005, its
receipt for a sum of Rs.10,800/- has been issued on
23.8.2005, whereas after receiving the total amount of
auction at the spot, it was to be deposited in the Bank.
In this way the Sarpanch by holding the auction of the
Shamlet land plots in the absence of the Extension
Officer, and by not receiving the amount of auction at
the spot, has violated the Rules.
2. That the Block Development and Panchayat Officer had written to the
Sarpanch vide letter No.704 dated 1.5.06 and No.1031 dated 30.6.06
and he was also told verbally, that you may supply the requisite copies
of the Gram Panchayat recorded to Shri Sheo Pal Singh son of Shri
Mukh Ram, resident of Dahina under the Information Act. But the
Sarpanch by not supplying the requisite copies has committed
negligence in performance of his duties and violated the orders of the
higher officers.
3. That by not taking action of removal of encroachment
against Shri Rameshwar Panch who has constructed a
Pucca house, over the land in his illegal possession, in
Khasra No.458, the Sarpanch has committed negligence
in performance of his duties.”
It is apparent from the records that there was no charge of
embezzlement against respondent No.5. It was only alleged that he was
negligent in conducting the auction in the absence of representative of the
department and further that he failed to collect money from the lessees on
conclusion of the auction proceedings. In that regard, it has come on record
that Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has deposited entire auction amount,
Civil Writ Petition No.4822 of 2008 5
along with the interest, in the account of the Gram Panchayat. In view of
that, this Court is convinced that he was rightly exonerated of the charge
framed against him.
With regard to second charge of non-supply of copies of the
record of the Gram Panchayat, it has come on record that copies were
handed over to the departmental officials and thereafter were further
transmitted to the petitioner. Against respondent No.6, it has come on
record that with regard to his alleged encroachment over the Gram
Panchayat’s land, on asking of respondent No.5 and under order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner, demarcation has been ordered. Counsel for
respondent No.5 has stated that in case any encroachment is found after
demarcation of property, action will be initiated against respondent No.6. It
is not in dispute that respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, after
looking into record of the enquiry and replies filed by respondent Nos.5 and
6, found them only careless in the discharge of duties and accordingly,
respondent No.5 was asked to remain careful in future and perform his
duties as per rules. It has further been ordered that on receipt of
measurement report, if need be, proceedings for removal of encroachment
made by respondent No.6, be initiated. This Court is satisfied that the
findings given by respondent No.2 are perfectly justified.
Counsel for the petitioner has further contented that the
authorities have failed to rely upon reports made by an expert (Annexures P-
6 and P-7) with regard to use of inferior quality of bricks and other material
in executing the development works. Perusal of documents mentioned
above, clearly indicates that the finding with regard to use of inferior quality
of material has been given by a private expert. Counsel for the petitioner
has failed to show us that inspection of material was made in the presence of
Civil Writ Petition No.4822 of 2008 6
the private respondents and officers of the department. It is also coming out
from the record that finding with regard to quality of the material was given
without getting the material analyzed from any recognized Laboratory.
Taking note of the above said fact, department has rightly said in affidavit
filed by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Jatusana dated
16.9.2008 that those reports cannot be taken into consideration. This
Court does not find any fault with the stand taken by the official
respondents.
In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for
interference.
Dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
21.11.2008 (T.S.THAKUR)
gk CHIEF JUSTICE