JAI LAL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was served with a charge -sheet under Sec. 105(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) that he did not give any help to the Sarpanch for eviction of unauthorised occupants on Shamilat Deh belonging to the Panchayat and that he did not give co -operation to him to fulfil his obligation towards the Panchayat which suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 8,400/ -. A joint reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the Petitioner and three other Panches who were served with similar notices. The reply was not found satisfactory and the Petitioner was made liable to pay Rs. 2,100/ - to the Panchayat for the said lapses vide order Annexure 'A' dated March 5, 1970. This petition has been filed for quashing that order.

(2.) The member of the Gram Panchayat can be made liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or property belonging to that body if such loss, waste or misapplication is a consequence of his neglect or misconduct while a member. The sole charge levelled against the Petitioner is that he neglected and failed to give co -operation to the Sarpanch in the ejectment of the unauthorised occupants of the Shamitet land. No detail as to how he failed to do so has been given in the order. Neither a Panch is required nor is he capable of rendering any co -operation in this respect because possession from unauthorised occupants is to be secured by taking recourse to the procedure and by approaching the competent authority under Sec. 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. All that a Sarpanch needs for making an application is the passing of resolution by the Panchayat. There is no allegation that the Petitioner or other members of the Panchayat deliberately did not join any meeting summoned by the Sarpanch for that purpose. I, therefore, fail to understand as to how the Petitioner failed or neglected to Co -operate with the Sarpanch in getting the unauthorised possession vacated. There was, therefore, no basis for passing an order under Sec. 105(2) of the Act.

(3.) This petition is consequently allowed and the impugned order quashed. No costs.