NAND LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, was an ex- Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Manewal. He came to hold the charge as a Sarpanch because of the incumbent Baldev Singh having been suspended from November 2, 1970 onwards. He remained a Sarpanch till June 26, 1972, but actually relinquished charge on July 18, 1972 by when new elections had taken place and one Lachhman Singh had been elected the Sarpanch, who had taken oath on that date. Thus, the petitioner continued to act as a Sarpanch till July 18, 1972. During that while, the petitioner had expended some money from the Panchayat funds. The Social Education and panchayat Officer, Balachaur, held an enquiry with regard to the expenses incurred. His report was adverse to the petitioner. Acting on that report, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Balachaur, exercising the powers under section 105(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') issued an order/notice (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner on July 11, 1973. According to the petitioner, he received it on July 20, 1973. In the said order, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer had observed that the petitioner had caused the loss of Rs. 4,282.05 paise to the Panchayat negligently or intentionally for which he was responsible. Holding the petitioner responsible, it was ordered therein that if he wanted to say anything in his defence, he should personally appear on July 18, 1973, failing which the order was to be final. It seems that no order was passed on July 18, 1973, as proposed. The petitioner, however, vide representation (Annexure P-4) objected to the finalisation of the figure of loss. It appears that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, then on March 11, 1974 (Annexure P-1) gave decision against the petitioner after taking into consideration all material and reduced the loss to the figure of Rs. 2,143.57 paise. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Assistant Director, Jullundur Division at Chandigarh, who vide his order dated June 17, 1974 (Annexure P-2) further reduced the figure of loss to Rs. 714.52 paise. On the partial acceptance of the appeal, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer required the petitioner, vide letter Annexure P-4, to pay the amount of Rs.714.52 paise in the Panchayat fund, as, otherwise, the recovery would be effected as arrears of land revenue. This gave cause to the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this petition.

(2.) The broad facts of the case are not disputed, though the petitioner additionally has pleaded material that in fact the money expended by him, had properly been explained by him while getting it accounted. And further that the matter had not been judged on merits properly. These aspects of the case cannot weigh with this Court in a petition like the present one. Keeping those apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a two-fold contention, (1) that the petitioner was served by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer after the expiry of a period of one year from his ceasing to be a member of the Panchayat and as such the process was barred by time under subsection (4) of section 105 of the Act, (2) that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer had prejudged the matter while issuing him order/notice by holding therein that the petitioner was responsible for the excess expenditure of Rs. 4,282.05 paise.

(3.) As has been noticed earlier, the impugned action was initiated on July 11, 1973, whereas the petitioner had ceased to be acting Sarpanch on July 18, 1972, as per return of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, on which date oath was administered to the newly elected Sarpanch Lachhman Singh. The action against the petitioner could thus be taken on or before July 18, 1973. In the instant case, the action was initiated by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer on July 11, 1973, within a period of one year, as envisaged under subsection (4) of section 105 of the Act. The provision may well be noted here :-