PHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the recovery of Rs. 10762/- under section 105 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (as applicable to Haryana) on the ground that prior to the passing of the impugned orders styled as notices (Annexures P.1, P.2, P.5, P.7 and P.8) neither any opportunity was afforded to him to explain that there was no misutilisation of the gram Panchayat funds nor has any finding been recorded by the authority either issuing or passing the same that the alleged loss or misutilisation of funds was on account of any misconduct of the petitioner as Sarpanch. It is not in dispute that during the tenures of the petitioner as sarpanch running into about 10 years, some constructions such as Farm well, Harijan well, streets and panchayat-ghar etc. were constructed under his charge or supervision. The claim of the petitioner is that determination of the above-noted amount as excess amount spent is wholly arbitrary and not based on any evidence.

(2.) Though on behalf of the respondent-authorities it is pleaded that the opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to explain the above-noted misutilisation of panchayat funds yet after being taken through the impugned annexures, I find that there was not even a semblance of an enquiry or opportunity afforded to the petitioner to substantiate his claim. The whole action of the respondent-authorities is against the mandate of the section as interpreted by this Court in Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 1972 PunLJ 649. It has been laid down that in a case where the assessment of loss of Panchayat funds by the District Panchayat Officer is assailed on the ground of arbitrariness and without any rational basis, the petitioner has to be apprised of the material on which the rates fixed or the basis on which the loss determined has been calculated. In such a situation, the petitioner has even to be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. No such procedure has been followed. The action of the respondent-authorities cannot but be styled as wholly arbitrary.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the impugned notices/orders referred to above are quashed. This, however, does not debar the respondent-authorities to go into the matter afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. The petitioner is also held entitled to the costs of this litigation which I determine at Rs. 250/-.