HAZARI LAL, SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing orders dated 6.5.2002 (Annexures P.3 and P.4) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat (respondent No. 2) and order dated 3.7.2002 (Annexure P.5) passed by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department (respondent No. 1) under Sections 51(1)(b) and 51(5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') respectively.

(2.) THE petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Harsana Kalan, Block Sonepat in the year 2000. In January, 2002, the Gram Panchayat received grant from the State and Central Government for digging ponds in the village under JGSY and EAS schemes. The work under those schemes was to be done by engaging labourers who were to be paid wages in the form of wheat. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat started the work of digging the ponds. On 19.2.2002, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sonepat (respondent No. 3) sent letter No. 358 to the petitioner to clarify his position against the alleged use of JCB machine for digging the ponds in violation of the provisions of the schemes. On 21.12.2002, the Economist from the office of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, Sub Divisional Officer (Panchayati Raj), Sonepat and Junior Engineer are said to have visited the spot and found that digging was being carried out by JCB machine. They are said to have asked the petitioner to stop the use of JCB machine but he did not comply with their directive. Upon this, respondent No. 3 sent report to respondent No. 2 incorporating the alleged violation of the scheme by the petitioner. Vide letter dated 27.3.2002, respondent No. 2 asked respondent No. 3 to conduct preliminary enquiry. The latter submitted report with the finding that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of the following allegations :

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order on various grounds including violation of rules of natural justice as embodied in Section 51(1)(b) of the Act and arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power by the respondents.