LUXMI DEVI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FINANCIAL Commissioner - The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent removed the appellant vide this order dated 21.9.2000, in exercise of his powers under Section 51(3)(c) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 because of having more than two children. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) OPENING his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant argued that before 22.6.1995 appellant had three children. He further argued that the appellant gave birth to a son namely Watan Kumar in May, 1995 and Monica (daughter) on 28.7.1997. He continued to argue that both those children were given in adoption to Roshni Devi w/o Shri Satpal, resident of village Rewar, district Sonepat and the adoption deed dated 3.8.1997 was executed, that no effective and desired hearing was afforded to the appellant by the respondent; that before issuance of the impugned order the respondent did not issue any charge-sheet to the appellant to enable her to explain her position; that the respondent was under legal obligation to get an enquiry conducted into the matter, that the name of Watan Kumar and Monica had even been got deleted from the ration card that the appellant was not allowed to lead her evidence and was not associated with the alleged enquiry. Concluding his arguments he prayed for acceptance of this appeal.

(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length and gone through the record. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against her, while as per legal requirement she was required to be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against her. Moreover, the impugned order contains that "as per the record the appellant has given birth to the two children after 1995", which means that the appellant was disqualified to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch but in the concluding para of the impugned order the respondent has removed the appellant in exercise of his powers under Section 51(3)(c) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which means that the appellant incurred the disqualification after her election as sarpanch. Thus both the findings are contrary to such other leading to inference that the respondent while passing the impugned order did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. Thus the impugned order cannot be said to be an order strictly in consonance with law. In view of the above mentioned discussion the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the respondent to pass, if required, the order in accordance with law. Be communicated. Case remanded