SADHU RAM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which seeks the issuance of a writ quashing the order dated the 4th of July, 1970, of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal (Annexure "H" to the petition) removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Gohlia Khurd in Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal, are these. Through a letter dated the 22nd September, 1969 (Annexure "A" to the petition), the Deputy Commissioner levelled the following three charges against the petitioner :

(2.) The impugned order must be quashed inasmuch as it is not a "speaking order" and appears to have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner without giving any real consideration to the charges levelled against the petitioner and the findings arrived at thereon by the Enquiry Officer. In so far as charges (a) and (c) are concerned, those findings cover matters which the Enquiry Officer was not at all called upon to investigate. The shortfall of 35000 bricks out of those purchased for the pavement of lanes had nothing to do with any bricks which the petitioner might have purchased for construction of latrines and the school building nor was he ever called upon to submit his explanation to any charge in relation to such construction. Similarly, his failure to recover any lease money was never the subject-matter of any charge and the finding of the Enquiry Officer on charge (c) was, therefore, wholly unwarranted. As it is, the Deputy Commissioner took the entire report of the Enquiry Officer into consideration while passing the impugned order and this is a course which he had no jurisdiction to adopt. It was his duty to confine the consideration of the material available against the petitioner only to the charges which had been levelled against him and which had been made the subject-matter of the notice dated the 22nd of September, 1969. It appears that while acting on the report the Deputy Commissioner did not look into it and passed a mechanical order accepting it in toto. Had he perused it, he would have at once seen that it went beyond the scope of the charges and would not have taken into consideration that part of it which was not germane to the enquiry entrusted to respondent No. 3.

(3.) Another reason why the impugned order must be quashed is that no proper opportunity appears to have been given to the petitioner to inspect the Panchayat record which furnished the most vital evidence in support of the findings arrived at by respondent No. 3 and was taken for granted by the Deputy Commissioner. According to the petitioner, he filed an application dated the 6th of March, 1970 (Annexure "C" to the petition) before respondent No. 3 requesting that the relevant record be sent for from the office of the Block Development Officer, Panipat, and asking for permission to inspect the same on arrival. The record of proceedings held by respondent No. 3 has been gone through by me but that application is not traceable thereon. As it is, there is no doubt that the petitioner made two applications (dated the 30th of May, 1970, and the 3rd of June, 1970) to the Deputy Commissioner for inspection of the record. It is true that the Deputy Commissioner informed him that he could inspect the record in the office but the grouse of the petitioner is that the communications despatched to him by the Deputy Commissioner in this behalf reached him no earlier than the 4th of July, 1970, which appears to be correct. This means that no real opportunity was given to the petitioner to inspect the record and, therefore, to defend himself.