MANGAT RAM, SARPANCH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the hearing of the petiion, the only challenge is to the part of order dated 23.4.1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, whereby petitioner has been debarred from taking part in the Panchayat election for a periof of six years. Challenge is also to order dated 21.12.1998 passd by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh, whereby in appeal, order dated 23.4.1998 of the Deputy Commissioner has been maintained.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that in December 1994, petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Palwal, Block Faridabad. Certain allegations of misconduct in the discharge of his duties as Sarpanch were levelled against him. Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, vide notice dated 6.5.1997/13.5.1997 asked the petitioner to submit reply to the allegations levelled against him. Petitoner filed reply on 28.5.1997 denying all the allegations. On the basis of preliminary enquiry, petitioner was suspended and a regular enquiry into the charges levelled against him was ordered and entrused to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Faridabad. In pursuance of order dated 6.5.1997, regular enquiry was conducted by the S.D.O. (Civil), Faridabad. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, the Inquiry Officer found all the charges proved against the petitioner. On receipt of the enquiry report, Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, served show-cause notice dated 7.11.1997 upon the petitioner asking him that in view of the report of S.D.O. (Civil) whereby five charges levelled against him have been proved why he should not be removed from the post of Sarpanch under Section 51(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short the 1994 Act). Petitioner was asked to submit reply to the said notice within 10 days. Petitioner submitted the reply. After considering the reply and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 23.4.1998 in exercise of his powers under Section 51(3) of the 1994 Act ordered removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch and further debarred him from taking part in the Panchayat election for a period of six years. The order was made operative with immediate effect. Petitioner having felt aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh. Vide order dated 21.12.1998, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) IT is true that the judgment in Jagdish Chand's case (supra) cited by the counsel for the petitioner was passed on the basis of concession given by the Advocate General, but the concession was given on the basis of the position in law which emerged from the reading of sub-section (3) of Section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (4 of 1953). Sub-section (4) is pari-materia to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 102 of the 1953 Act ibid and, therefore, judgment in Jagdish Chand's case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case.