RAM SINGH SARPANCH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that as per the preliminary enquiry report of the Child Development Project Officer, Naraingarh the appellant was found prima facie guilty of getting the birth of his son, born on 23.1.2003, entered in the name of his brother-in-law. Therefore, the respondent No. 1, in exercise of his powers under section 51(5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, instituted regular enquiry against the appellant and vide his subsequent order dated 6.1.2004 placed the appellant under suspension in exercise of his powers under section 51(1)(b) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said suspension order this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) OPENING his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant argued that no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant before passing the impugned order. He further argued that a finding of guilt of a criminal offence has been recorded against the appellant by the respondent No. 1 only on the basis of so-called preliminary enquiry report. He continued to argue that the appellant was not associated with the preliminary enquiry, that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the appellant; that the impugned order is neither speaking order nor well reasoned order, that the birth certificate dated 17.4.2003 (Annexure A-2) carries a presumption of truth in view of provisions contained in the Evidence Act; that the authority miserably failed to take into consideration the affidavit dated 21.11.2003 duly sworn by Smt. Vidhya; that no copy of complaint or preliminary enquiry report was ever supplied to the appellant. In support of his arguments he cited 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 276. Concluding his arguments he prayed for acceptance of this appeal with costs.

(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length and gone through the record. Before passing the impugned order the respondent No. 1 served show cause notice upon the appellant to which the appellant submitted even his written reply dated 24.11.2003 with the respondent No. 1, wherein he did not demand opportunity of personal hearing or copy of the preliminary enquiry report. As per the decision dated 7.5.1971 of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No. 291 of 1970 where no request is made for getting a copy of the enquiry officer's report no grievance can be made. It has further been held therein that it is not obligatory on the part of the respondent No. 1 to furnish the report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent sarpanch. Thus in view of this crystal clear ruling the arguments to the effect that no adequate opportunity to explain was given to the appellant and that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the appellant are devoid of any merit. The impugned order is an interim order because the final order remains yet to be passed after conclusion of regular enquiry already pending against the appellant and as per the ruling dated 5.4.2002 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 2477 of 2002 interim order has to be passed after considering prima facie charges. For ready reference the said ruling is reproduced below :- "While passing interim order prima facie charges are to be considered and detailed reasons are not required to be recorded otherwise it may affect pending enquiry."