HARI SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchavat. Khanal Kalan. District Sangrur. A complaint was made apainst him by Gurbachan Sinsh and others through an application dated March 15, 1970, wherein various allegations of embezzlement of Panchavat funds were levelled against him. The Deputv Commissioner, Sangrur, forwarded that complaint to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil ). Sunam, for holding a fact-finding enquiry. That officer submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner on September 8, 1971, which was forwarded bv the Deputy Commissioner to the Director of Panchayats. Punjab, with his letter dated November 14. 1971. In that letter, it was stated that the Sarpanch had misappropriated the Gram Panchavat Funds and had leased out the Shamilat land at a low rent according to his own will. The permission to proceed aeainst him under Section 102 (2) of the Gram Panchavat Act 1952 (hereinafter called the 'act') was sought. The Director of Panchavats replied to that letter by memorandum dated November 30. 1971. the English rendering of which reads as under:-

(2.) YOU are hereby permitted to make enquiry under Section 102 (21 of the Punjab Gram Panchavat Act, 1952, against Shri Hari Singh Sarpanch, Gram Panchavat, Khanal, Sunam Block, District Sangrur. personally or through some officer whom you may depute for this purpose. In case you feel, during the enquiry, that proceedings under Section 102 (1) of the said Act are required to be taken against the Sarpanch. vou can take the same.

(3.) SPECIAL attention be given to the following at the time of enquiry: - (a) a clear and definite charge sheet shall be given to the delinquent: (b) the delinquent shall be informed of the material on the basis of which the allegations have been levelled: (c) everv opportunity shall be given to the delinquent in order to enable him to defend the allegations levelled against him in every respect, and (d) opportunity for cross-examination shall also be given to both the parties. Even if the enquiry officer is required to do so in order to draw conclusion by going deep into the matter, it shall be done accordingly. " 2. After receipt of this letter, the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on December 20, 1971. detailing the facts found aeainst him bv the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner was told that the charges mentioned showed that he had misused his powers and had embezzled Panchavat funds. Consequently, he was suspended with immediate effect and ordered not to take part in the Panchayat work any longer. He also appointed the District Public Grievances Officer, Sangrur, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry into the matter. The petitioner filed the present petition chal- lenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner appointing the Enquiry Officer on the ground that he had no iurisdiction to do so. This petition came UP for hearing before mv learned brother. Sandhawalia, J. , who recommended to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Division Bench to hear this petition. Consequently, this petition has been placed for decision before us. 3. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Director of Panchavats, by his letter dated November 30. 1971, set out above, only permitted the Deputy Commissioner to make an enquiry under Section 102 (2) of the Act instead of ordering the enquiry himself to be conducted by a particular officer. His further submission is that the Director of Panchayats, himself beine a delegate of the Government, could not further delegate his powers to decide about the enquiry being held to the Deputy Commissioner. We find no merit in this submission as the language of the letter clearly shows that the Director of Panchavats on the basis of the report of the Sub Divisional Officer, which was sent to him by the Deputy Commissioner along with his letter dated November 14, 1971, decided that it was a case which required an enquiry to be held. He accordingly directed the Deputv Commissioner to hold the enquiry either by himself or bv appointing some other officer. The decision to hold the enquiry was thus of the Director of Panchavats and not of the Deputy Commissioner. This submission is consequently repelled,