MADAN LAL KARAMCHAND Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by madan Lal, challenging the order, dated 25th of August, 1964, passed by the director of Panchayats, Punjab, respondent, removing him from the office of sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Pansara, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala, under the provisions of Section 102 (2) (a) (d) and (e) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952.

(2.) ON 31st of January, 1964 the petitioner was convicted by the Court of magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under each of the three Sections 225, 332 and 506 of the Indian penal Code (the sentences to run concurrently), for assaulting the Naib Tehsildar (Recovery), while-the latter was on duty. On the basis of this conviction, the respondent on 14th of March, 1964, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 102 (1) of the Gram Panchayat Act, suspended the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch and debarred him from taking part in any act or proceedings of the Gram Panchayat during the period of his suspension. He was further asked to explain his position within fifteen days as to why action should not be taken against him under Section 102 (2) and 3. In response to this show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his representations, the first some time before 14th of May 1964, the-second on 14th of May 1964; and the third on 10th of august, 1964. In the first, he submitted that as an appeal against his conviction was pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ambala, and the matter was sub judice, the order of his suspension might be cancelled. In the others, he stated that on 6th of April 1964, the Sessions Judge, Ambala, had reduced his sentence to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400 under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and to one month's rigorous imprisonment under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code, while he had been acquitted of the charge under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It was also submitted that since these offences did not involve either moral turpitude or any defect of character, he could not be suspended. It was not every conviction for which such an action could under the law be taken. After considering these representations, the following impugned order, removing him from the office of Sarpanch was passed : "whereas I am satisfied after enquiry that Shri Madan Lal Sarpanch of gram Sabha, Pan-sara, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala, has been convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under sections 225-B, 332 and 506 (later part) of the Indian Penal Code on 31st of January, 1964 by Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri, and on appeal, the sentence has been reduced to two months and a fine of Rs. 400 under Section 332, Indian Penal Code, and to one month's rigorous imprisonment under Section 225, Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions judge, Ambala, vide his order dated 6th April, 1964. Shri Madan Lal sarpanch has confessed this fact. Hence, he is not entitled to continue as Sarpanch under Section 6 (5) (b) and (c) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (amended), read with Section 102 (1) and 102 (2) ibid. Therefore, his continuance in the office of Sarpanch is undesirable in the interest of the Public. Therefore, in exercise of the powers contained in Section 102 (2) (a) (d)and (e) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (amended), read with Punjab govt. Notification No. 11508-LB-53/10558, dated the 6th May, 1954, I, net Ram, Director of Panchayats,: Punjab, hereby remove Shri Madan lal from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pansara, Tehsil jagadhri, District Ambala. " this led to the filing of the present writ petition on 8th of September, 1964.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions before me. (1) The offences under Sections 225 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code neither involve moral turpitude nor do they denote a defect of character and, therefore, the respondent had no jurisdiction to remove the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch on the basis of such conviction; (2) that Section 6 (5) (c) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, is ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution as it vests uncanalised and unfettered powers in the executive authority. There are no principles or rules for the guidance of the Government for determining whether an order by a criminal Court implies a defect of character or not; and (3) No enquiry was made by the Government, as contemplated by section 102 (2) of the Gram Panchayat Act, before the impugned order was passed, and no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner to explain his position before his removal was ordered.