CHANDER BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by Chander Bhan is directed against the order dated 27th December, 1977 (Annexure P.2) of the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, allowing the appeal of Chattar Singh.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition may briefly be stated thus :- Chattar Singh respondent No.4 was elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Barwasni. Chander Bhan petitioner and other members of the Gram Sabha, Barwasni filed a complaint against Chattar Singh respondent that according to the audit report he had embezzled the panchayat funds. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, conducted the inquiry against Chattar Singh. Chattar Singh was charge-sheeted vide order dated 8th October, 1973, and his explanation was called for. After receiving the explanation of Chattar Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, appointed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sonepat, to hold a regular inquiry and assess the loss caused by Chattar Singh. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer held a full dressed inquiry and gave full opportunity to the complainant and Chattar Singh respondent No. 4. After carefully analysing the evidence and facts brought to his notice he held that Chattar Singh respondent No. 4 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3010/- to the Gram Panchayat under section 105(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') as applicable to the State of Haryana. Chattar Singh respondent No.4 went up in appeal before the Deputy Director, Panchayats, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 2nd August, 1977. While making a minor modification he held that Chattar Singh was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and not Rs. 3,010/- as held by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Dissatisfied, Chattar Singh filed a revision petition which was allowed by the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, on a wholly wrong interpretation of section 105(4) of the Act. Aggrieved, Chander Bhan has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition has been resisted by Chattar Singh respondent No. 4 on various grounds, inter alia, contending that Chattar Singh remained Sarpanch from 1964 to 1971. Thereafter he was elected as a Panch and was working as such when the inquiry was held. He had not embezzled any money of the Gram Panchayat. No proceedings under section 105(1) of the Act could be taken against the petitioner after the expiry of six of the two years from the occurrence of the alleged loan or after the expiry of two years from his ceasing to be a member, whichever is earlier. Since the said respondent had ceased to be a Sarpanch in July 1971, he could not be called upon to make good the loss after July 1973. Admittedly in this case, the notice was given after that date, so the proceedings were barred by limitation and the revision petition had rightly been accepted.