MAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Ujah, of Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal in the year 1965 and remained so upto December 14, 1971. In the written statement filed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Panipat, it is stated that the petitioner relinquished charge on June 28, 1971. Subsequently respondent No. 5 was elected Sarpanch of this Panchayat. His successor Sarpanch made an application to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Panipat that the petitioner mis-utilised 54000 bricks and had not accounted for the same. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, respondent No. 3 made an enquiry and held the petitioner responsible for the loss of Rs. 2862/- (annexure A). The petitioner when came to know of it filed an appeal before the Deputy Director Panchayats Haryana against the impugned order of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The Deputy Director dismissed the appeal as time-barred vide his order dated March 5, 1973 (annexure 'F').

(2.) It is against these impugned orders of Block Development and Panchayat Officer and the Deputy Director Panchayats Haryana that the present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri J.C. Verma has contended that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner either by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or the District Panchayat Officer. His second contention is that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer has not passed a speaking order and he has given no reasons as to how the petitioner was responsible for the loss and that the order is bad on account of non- application of the mind also. His third contention is that the petitioner relinquished charge on June 28, 1971 and the proceedings against the petitioner started in December, 1972, that is, one and a half years of the relinquishing of the charge.