JAI RAM DASS Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by Jai Ram Dass, who was elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Lalru in the election held in December, 1960 under the provision of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 , (Punjab Act No. IV of 1953), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, and the rules made thereunder.

(2.) On the 25th September, 1961, the Director of Panchayats, Punjab (hereinafter to be referred to as the Director) passed an order (copy Annexure 'A' to the petition) in which it was stated that during the course of an enquiry it has transpired that the petitioner was alleged to have been responsible for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as Sarpanch and various acts of omission and commission were stated on the basis of which it was mentioned that his continuance in the office of Sarpanch was considered undesirable in the interest of the public. Accordingly in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Director by sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Act, the petitioner was suspended and debarred from taking part in any act or proceedings of the Panchayat during the period of his suspension. In the endorsement to this order, whereby a copy was forwarded inter alia to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer concerned, it was directed that the Sarpanch should be asked to explain why he should not be removed on those charges and his explanation be sent to the Director with comments at an early date. A copy was also sent to the petitioner for compliance. Subsequently, on the 10th November, 1961 the Director passed an order stating that being satisfied after enquiry that the petitioner had been responsible for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as Sarpanch in relation to the various acts of omission and commission which had been mentioned in the preceding order, he held that his continuance in the office of Sarpanch was considered undesirable in the interests of the public. In exercise of the powers contained in clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Act, the Director removed the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch.

(3.) The above was the order impugned in the writ petition and the respondents are (1) The Director of Panchayats, Punjab and (2) The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Development and Panchayats, Punjab who had turned down the petitioner's representation against the order dated the 10th November, 1961. The petition has been opposed by the respondents. This writ petition came up for hearing before my learned brother D.K. Mahajan, J. before whom two contentions were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.