DALIP SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Attalan, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, in 1964. Balkar Singh, Panch, who was impleaded as respondent No. 3 on his own application, had filed a complaint against the petitioner and an enquiry had been ordered by the Director of Panchayats, respondent No. 1. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by Shri Gopal Singh, Deputy Director of Panchayats, respondent No. 2, it has been ordered by respondent No. 1, on 16.9.1970 that the petitioner should be removed from the post of Sarpanch under Section 102(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act') as petitioner's continuance in office was undesirable in the interests of the public. This order was conveyed to the petitioner on 25.9.1970 vide Annexure 'C' to the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of the impugned order dated 16/25-9-1970.

(2.) The complaint was received by respondent No. 1 through 'the M.P.W.' which I am told stands for 'the Minister of Public Works'. The Deputy Director, respondent No. 2, was duly appointed by respondent No. 1 as the Inquiry Officer for going into the complaint which contained allegations, inter alia, of misappropriation of the Panchayat funds and property. The petitioner was associated in that inquiry and evidence was recorded by the Inquiry Officer in petitioner's presence. He was given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses produced by the complainant. The petitioner had also examined two witnesses in his defence and was then the last to go into the witness box. During the inquiry, it had been found that the cash-book and the other accounts were not being properly maintained and that the petitioner had asked for time to produce the cash book. After the receipt of the Inquiry Officer's report, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice (Annexure 'A' dated 25.7.1969) enumerating the irregularities found by the Inquiry Officer to have been committed by the petitioner. After enumerating these instances of neglect of duty, irregularities and misconduct, it was stated in the end that it was in the interest of the Panchayat that the petitioner should not continue to hold the office of Sarpanch and should show cause why he should not be dismissed from that office under Section 102(2)(e) of the Act. The petitioner submitted an explanation (Annexure 'B') dated nil which was received in the office of respondent No. 1 in the month of October, 1969. The petitioner was given a personal hearing on 27.2.1970 and as his explanation was found to be unsatisfactory the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 1. A number of charges were found to be proved against the petitioner and respondent No. 1 had given detailed reasons for coming to his findings on all these charges separately.

(3.) Shri Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has directed his challenge against the impugned order on the following grounds :-