SUKHCHAIN SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has complained against respondent No.3, alleging that he is in illegal possession of 32 kanals of shamlat land bearing Khasra Nos.33//1 and 34//5, which belongs to Gram Panchayat. Block Development and Panchayat Officer conducted an enquiry and the report was submitted to Director Rural Development and Panchayat. Respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to Raghbir Singh, Sarpanch, calling upon him to explain his position within 15 days. The Sarpanch took up a stand that the allegations of illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land by him are totally false and baseless. Dis-satisfied with the reply so filed, show cause notice was issued to respondent No.3. A specific order was passed that written explanation is not satisfactory. Respondent No.3 ultimately was placed under suspension in exercise of powers under Sections 20(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and was restrained from participating in the functioning of Gram Panchayat. Against this order, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal, which was accepted and the finding is returned that respondent No.3 is not in illegal possession of the land now as the same stand auctioned in favour of Jagdish Singh son of Darshan Singh. Respondent No.3 had been reinstated, which the petitioner has challenged through the present writ petition.

(2.) On 9.5.2012, it was stated before the Court that regular enquiry had been held in this case after the filing of the writ petition and the allegations against respondent No.3 were not established. Directions were issued to place the regular enquiry held in this case on record. The said regular enquiry had not been placed on record and it was so noticed in the order dated 26.7.2012. Adjournment was still granted subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs.

(3.) On 5.11.2012, it was noticed that neither the costs were deposited nor the enquiry had been placed on record. State counsel, at that stage, pointed out that enquiry report, which was available in January 2012, had not been placed on record despite communication having been addressed to the concerned office. Noticing that the case had to be adjourned on three occasions and the requirement of placing the enquiry report on record has not been complied with despite imposing of costs, the Court took a serious note of this careless attitude. A notice was accordingly issued to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for violating the directions issued by this Court. It was also directed that as to why this act of inefficiency be not reflected in his annual confidential report. Direction to place on record the enquiry report was issued subject to further costs of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to the costs of Rs. 5,000/- already imposed. This was to be paid by the responsible officer who had failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court.