NAFE SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On July 7, 2010, this Court had passed the following order: Learned counsel has urged that without associating the petitioner with the proceedings, the appellate Court had made following observations: However, before parting with this, it will be appropriate to observe that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Radaur had submitted its report vide his letter dated 2.1.2006 i.e. well within the prescribed period, but he did not issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within the period prescribed under the law and thus the then Block Development and Panchayat Officer had failed to perform his duties diligently. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to take necessary action against the delinquent Block Development and Panchayat Officer, including recovery of the amount of loss. Civil Writ Petition No.11737 of 2010

(2.) Learned counsel has stated that this not only amounts to strictures but also is to the detriment of the petitioner, who has retired in year 2008. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this part of the order passed by the appellate authority should not be taken into consideration, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Issue notice of motion for 11th August, 2010. Operation of the impugned order, so far it concerns the petitioner, is stayed till then. Counsel for the State has not been able to defend order (Annexure P-6) dated 16th March, 2010, whereby at the back of the petitioner, without affording him any opportunity of hearing, observations were made by the revisional authority.

(3.) In these circumstances, order (Annexure P-6) is hereby set aside and the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Department of Development and Panchayat, Haryana, Chandigarh is directed to decide Revision Petition No.143 of 2009 afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of.