LABH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kakrala Anayat, Block Guhla at Chika, district Karnal. It is stated that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 who are also elected Panches of the Gram Panchayat did not like the conscientious manner in which the petitioner was discharging his duties. They started making manipulations against the petitioner and were able to secure the sympathy of respondent No. 2 also. On 30th October, 1972, a meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held in which a resolution was passed expressing want of confidence in the petitioner in his capacity as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. On the following day, respondent No. 2, issued a notice for convening a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, which, after deliberations, decided that a new Sarpanch should be elected on 13th November, 1972. The petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that the resolution of the Gram Panchayat expressing no-confidence in the Sarpanch becomes effective only after the Director of Panchayats has accorded approval to such a resolution. It is urged that the approval of the Director has not been obtained in this case and as such the petitioner did not cease to remain as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. In the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been stated that the meeting for expressing no-confidence in the petitioner was held by the Panchayat after obtaining prior approval of the Director of Panchayats in that behalf. It is, however, admitted that the Director of Panchayats has so far not accorded any approval to the resolution of the Gram Sabha in which it had shown want of confidence in the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the return that a report has been made to the Director of Panchayats vide Memo No. 4116 dated 25th December, 1972, to grant approval to the resolution of the Gram Sabha. In view of these admissions made in the written statement, I direct that the petitioner shall continue to hold the office of Sarpanch till the Director of Panchayats accords approval to the no-confidence resolution passed against him by the Panches of the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that directions should also be issued to the Director of Panchayats to give a hearing to the petitioner before according any approval to the no-confidence resolution. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon The State of Punjab and another v. Bijay Singh and others,1963 CurLJ 429(F.B.). That case, however, related to the removal of a Panch or a Sarpanch on the ground of misconduct. The Full Bench of this Court held that before a finding of misconduct is given against a Panch or a Sarpanch, he is entitled to be given a notice to show cause against the action sought to be taken against him. The decision in that case is in line with the accepted notions of the principles of natural justice. When a citizen is elected to a public office, he is invested with a right to hold that office for the term for which he is elected. In case his tenure has to be cut short on the ground of any misconduct alleged to have been committed by him, then, he is entitled to be apprised of the grounds on which the action is sought to be taken against him and the final order is to be passed only after his explanation is taken into consideration. So far as the normal functioning of a Sarpanch or a Panch is concerned, it may be observed that they perform legislative and executive functions as the members of a corporate body known as the Gram Panchayat. The statute provides that a Sarpanch will continue to hold his office till he is able to have the support of a majority of the Panches. This situation is already known to the Sarpanch, and when a meeting for expressing want of confidence in him is held it gives sufficient notice of the action which is sought to be taken against him. In these matters, no penal action is being taken against the Sarpanch. Consequently, he is not entitled to any notice when a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is being approved by the Director. While according this approval, the Director does not perform quasi-judicial functions. He is merely concerned with the fact that a proper meeting for showing a confidence or no-confidence in the Sarpanch had been convened in accordance with the rules. In a given case, however, if there is some dispute about the legality of the meeting in which such a resolution is passed against a Sarpanch, it would be proper for the Director of Panchayats to give a decision after hearing both the parties. But in all such cases in which the legality of the meeting is not being called in question, the Sarpanch against whom a resolution of no-confidence is passed, is not entitled to any hearing at the time when the Director of Panchayats accords approval to such a resolution.

(3.) For the reasons mentioned above, this petition succeeds to the extent that the petitioner will continue to hold the office of Sarpanch as long as the Director of Panchayats does not accord approval to the resolution of no-confidence passed against him. In all other respect this petition fails and is dismissed. Petition partly allowed.