RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was elected as a Panch of Gram Panchayat Wazirabad during the month of June, 1978 impugns the order of his removal from that office dated February 4, 1980 (Annexure P.1 ) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon. It has been ordered on the ground that he had been convicted for the violation of provisions of Inter Zonal Wheat Product Movement Control Order, 1973 and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/- on December 18, 1974. Prior to the passing of the impugned order he was served with a show cause notice asking him to explain as to why he should not be removed from the office in the light of the provisions section 5(5)(c) read with section 102(2)(a) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (for short, the Act) as applicable in Haryana. In reply to this notice, the petitioner pleaded that he himself being a producer of wheat was not aware of the provisions of the above-noted control order and had confessed that he was trying to remove some of his wheat to Delhi state on the border of which his village is situated without a permit and his conviction was recorded on that basis. He further asserted that confession was procured by the prosecuting agency on the assurance that no sentence would be passed against him. This explanation of the petitioner has neither been accepted as genuine nor enough by the Deputy Commissioner for allowing the petitioner to continue as a Panch.

(2.) Now learned counsel for the petitioner besides raising various other pleas such as that the conviction of the petitioner did not involve any moral turpitude and the election of the petitioner could only be set aside through an election petition also contends that in any case the removal of the petitioner could not be ordered on February 4, 1980 i.e. after 5 years of his conviction (December 18, 1974) in view the provisions of section 5(5)(b) under which section the impugned order purports to have been passed. In order to appreciate the stand it is apparently necessary to reproduce the relevant part of this section which reads as follow :

(3.) Learned counsel appears to be wholly right is making this submission. A bare reading of the above noted provision indicates that the discontinuance of a Panch has to be ordered prior to the expiry of 5 years from the date of the conviction of which he is accused of. No doubt, it is true, that the process for the removal of the petitioner from the office of Panch had started within 5 years of the date of conviction with the issuance of the show-cause notice on June 18, 1979 but the fact remains that his discontinuance was ordered vide the impugned order after lapse of 5 years from the date of the conviction. The intention of the statute appears to be that the disability of conviction cannot be fastened to a person who either seeks election or is elected to the office for all times to come. It can remain operative for a period of 5 years only from the date of the conviction. That period having elapsed before the passing of the impugned order the petitioner obviously could not be discontinued from the office of Panch to which he had been duly elected. In the light of this conclusion of mine the rest of the contentions raised by the learned counsel in the petition need not be gone into.