JAGDISH CHANDER SARPANCH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Khai Shergarh, District Sirsa, who has challenged the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa, under Section 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), ordering regular inquiry against him and order dated 20.12.2011 addressed to the BDPO, for registration of FIR against the petitioner.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that 100 Sq. Yds. Plot were to be allotted to the weaker section of the society, including the Scheduled Caste and other landless persons who were not having a house in the village, under the Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojna. A committee of 5 members was constituted for scrutinization of applications and allotment of plots to the deserving candidates. 79 deserving candidates were found out to whom 51 plots of 100 Sq. Yds. each were allotted. The left over 28 plots could not be allotted but the allegation against the petitioner is that he had, on his own, allotted pots to 39 ineligible candidates and gift deeds were also executed in their favour. Respondent nos.5 and 6 made a complaint about the irregularity committed by the petitioner on the basis of which a regular enquiry was ordered which was conducted by DDPO, Sirsa, who, vide his inquiry report dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) recommended that Om Parkash, Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Block Baragudha, and the petitioner were remiss in performing their duties while executing the gift deeds in favour of 39 ineligible persons intentionally. He recommended that it will be appropriate to take action against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 51 of the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a show cause notice dated 13.10.2011 was served upon the petitioner by respondent no.2 as to why action may not be taken against him to which he filed his reply on 24.10.2011. Ultimately, respondent no.2, who is the punishing authority of the petitioner, passed the order on 31.10.2011 to the following effect:-

(3.) The things did not stop there because respondent nos.5 and 6 again made a complaint on 08.11.2011 against the petitioner on the same set of allegations, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.2 on 19.12.2011 for holding a regular inquiry against the petitioner as well as, vide order dated 20.12.2011, for registration of a criminal case against him.