DAULAT SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Gram Panchayat at Bhusthala, District Karnal, Mam Raj Singh (respondent No. 3) is the Sarpanch while Sardara Singh (respondent No. 4) is one of the Panches. In pursuance of various complaints made against respondents nos. 3 and 4 by the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal (respondent No. 1) ordered on the 14th of August, 1970, two separate enquiries into the allegations on which the complaints were made, under sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (Annexures P. 5 and P. 6 ). Simultaneously respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were suspended from their respective offices and the district Development and Panchayat Officer, Karnal (respondent No. 2) was appointed to act as the Enquiry Officer.

(2.) PRECISELY five months later, i. e. , on the 14th of January, 1971, respondent No. 1 reinstated respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to their respective offices, vide orders annexures P. 7 and P. 8. These are the two orders impugned in this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the grounds of attack being: (1) that the petitioner were never called upon by any authority to substantiate the allegations made by them against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and (2) that the impugned orders are not speaking orders.

(3.) AT the hearing ground (1) has been found to be false. The record of proceedings of the enquiry held by respondent No. 2 has been produced in Court and reveals that on the 20th of November, 1970, statements of 18 witnesses including petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 23 were recorded by respondent No. 2 in support of the allegations made in the complaints above mentioned. No desire was expressed by any of the petitioners to produce further evidence nor was a demand made that the proceedings be adjourned for that purpose. Respondent No. 2 recorded the statements of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 also on the same day and on the 23rd of december, 1970, made his report saying that from the evidence recorded none of the allegations made in the complaints stood substantiated. It was in pursuance of that report that respondent No. 1 passed the impugned orders.