UTTAM SINGH SARPANCH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of a writ quashing the order dated the 22nd December, 1970 (Annexure 'c' to the petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur (respondent no. 2) which directs the suspension of the petitioner from the office of the sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Rampur (hereinafter referred to as the panchayat) under S. 102 (1) of the Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has arisen in the following circumstances. The petitioner was elected sarpanch of the Panchayat in the year 1954 and again in the year 1964. He was holding that office when, in the month of June, 1969, respondent No. 4 made against him a complaint to which an enquiry was ordered by respondent No. 2 after permission therefor had been accorded by the Director of Panchayats, Punjab on the 31st of July, 1969 through a letter (Annexure "a" to the return of respondent No. 2) which also authorised respondent No. 2 to take any action against the petitioner under Section102 (1) of the Act such as he might consider necessary. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Batala, held the enquiry and made to respondent No. 2 a report on the basis of which a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the 9th of March, 1970. (Annexure "a" to the petition ). This notice details the following four charges in relation to which the petitioner was called upon to furnish explanation:--"1. In contravention of Rule 23 (1) of the Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965, you kept Rs. 1700/- to Rs. 1800/- i. e. , more than Rs. 50/- belonging to the Panchayat from December 1965 to July 1969 and utilized it for your personal use and thereby caused loss of interest to the Panchayat which was to be paid by the bank on that amount.

(2.) IN the year 1960 the fish pond was auctioned for rs. 380/ -. According to the rules, you did not recover 1/4 th of the auction amount at the spot and due to your negligence, the said amount has not been realised as yet. Again in the year 1967, the said fish pond was auctioned for three years for a sum of Rs. 305/- in the absence of any resolution passed by the Panchayat. This clearly shows that action regarding the panchayat affairs was not taken according to rules.

(3.) THE resolution for the auction of the Panchayat land was not passed in accordance with the instructions issued under the Punjab Village common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. Moreover, the auction amount was not realised in cash at the spot.