SHANKAR DATT Vs. DEVELOPMENT MINISTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shankar Datt and seven other petitioners filed a complaint against Hari Singh, respondent No. 4, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Guldehra, before the Director, Panchayat Department, Haryana, Chandigarh. An inquiry into the allegations made in that complaint was held by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Kaithal, on the following charges :-

(2.) It deserves mention at the outset that the enquiry against Hari Singh was instituted upon a complaint made by Shankar Datt and others, petitioners before us. They appeared before the inquiry officer (Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Kaithal) and gave evidence against Hari Singh. A perusal of the report of the inquiry officer, copy Annexure P.2, shows that as far back as 1962, the Gram Panchayat, Dhulgarh, through Shankar Datt, the then Sarpanch now one of the petitioners before us, had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal (Shri D.K. Khanna) for ejectment of smt. Kala Devi alias Kalawati, and the same was dismissed by that Court vide its order dated 29th January, 1963, copy Annexure R/1, with a finding that the land measuring 306 Kanals 17 Marlas in question did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The aforesaid Gram Panchayat, through its Sarpanch, presented another application under Section 7 of the Act against Bharat Lal, Chhaju Ram, Amar Nath and Chatarpal sons of Kewal Ram respondent, to whom their aunt Kala Devi by that time had gifted the aforesaid land, in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Class, Kaithal (Shri Sant Kumar Joshi). That application too was dismissed by that Court on the basis of the decision given in the previous petition vide its order dated 22nd November, 1977 copy Annexure R/2. The inquiry officer gravely erred in not giving due weight to this material evidence on the record and it appears that the decisions of the Assistant Collectors given vide their orders dated 29th January, 1963, and 22nd November, 1977, copies Annexures R/1 and R/2 respectively, and which were produced before the inquiry officer and also find mention in his report, influenced, and rightly so, the above-said Director, who passed the impugned order, copy Annexure P.4. All the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Director should have given a hearing to all the petitioners before passing the said order. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners having taken part in the course of the inquiry and given evidence against Hari Singh, had nothing more to disclose before the above said Director. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, they were not entitled to a hearing by the Director. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited Suresh Chand and others v. Director of Panchayats, Haryana and others, 1979 PunLJ 116, wherein the impugned order passed by the Director was set aside on the ground that the persons, who had lodged the complaint against the Sarpanch were not heard by the Director. But, in that case the complaint against the Sarpanch culminated in the registration of a case under Sections 406 and 409, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Sonepat. Section 102(1) of the Gram Panchayat Act provides that the Director may suspend any Panch where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial if, in the opinion of the Director, the charge made or proceeding taken against him is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character. Accordingly, the Sarpanch was suspended on 30th June, 1978, but he was reinstated by the Director 18 July, 1978, notwithstanding the fact that the abovesaid case was pending against the Sarpanch. It was in these circumstances that a Bench of this Court expressed the view that the persons, who made the complaint against the Sarpanch, should have been heard by the Director. It bears repetition that in the present case, the Director first exonerated Hari Singh Sarpanch of the charge against him and then ordered his reinstatement and that whatever material the petitioners wanted to bring against Hari Singh was already on the record.

(3.) Besides, the orders of the Assistant Collectors Ist Grade, Kaithal, copies Annexures R.1 and R.2 which also were produced before the inquiry officer and, as such formed part of the evidence before him, are binding on the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, it can safely be said that the petitioners had in fact made a frivolous complaint against Hari Singh, respondent, with a view to harass him. Hence, no illegality was committed by the Director, Panchayat Department, Haryana, by passing the impugned order without giving hearing to the petitioners to which, in the facts and circumstances of this case, they were not entitled at all.