HARDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question involved in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether a Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat elected under the relevant provisions of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) can be suspended under sub-section (1) and removed under sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Act on account of something done or omitted to be done by him during a previous period of his Sarpanchship of the same Panchayat. The only other(question which has arisen in this writ petition is whether a Deputy Commissioner who has once finally disposed of a complaint against a Sarpanch under Section 102 of the Act can re-open the matter and review his earlier decision, irrespective of whether the earlier decision was given by himself or by his predecessor in office. The facts which have led to the above questions being raised in the instant case may first be summarised.

(2.) The petitioner was elected Member and then Chairman of the Banga Block Samiti in 1961 and continued to be Sarpanch till the new elections held in or about February, 1964. During this period, the Panchayat of village Kariha passed a resolution on November 4, 1962 (Annexure A to the written statement) authorising the collection of funds for the National Defence Fund and resolving that the entire amount so collected should be deposited in the office of Block Development Officer, Banga, and receipt obtained form the said officer. In pursuance of the said resolution, a sum of Rs. 5079/- was admittedly collected by the Panchayat for the National Defence Fund. Out of the collected amount, Rs. 3000/- were paid to the Block Development Officer on November 8, 1962 in two instalments and his two receipts of that date were obtained for the same. In the receipt for Rs. 1000/-, the amount was shown to be the personal contribution from the petitioner instead of from the Panchayat, in the depositor's column. The petitioner submitted an application on November, 10, 1962, to the Block Development Officer, Banga, to correct the name of the depositor in the said receipt. The needful is stated to have been done by the Block Development Officer on November 10, 1962 (Annexure A). The balance of Rs. 2079/- is stated by the petitioner's to have been deposited by him in the Panchayat's account in the Cooperative Bank of the village as Panchayat' money. In the meantime the term of the petitioner as a Sarpanch came to an end; but in the fresh elections held in or about 1964, the petitioner was again elected to that office. By letter dated November 21, 1964, the Block Development Officer asked the petitioner why he had not deposited the amount of the entire collection in the National Defence Fund Account. The petitioner deposite another some of Rs. 1000/- from out of the Panchayat funds towards the National Defence Fund on November 28, 1964. It was after the making of the said deposited that the petitioner claims to have received the letter of the Block Development Officer dated November 21, 1964. Be that as it may, the petitioner submitted his written reply to the Block Development Officer's letter on August 4, 1965 (Annexure C) wherein he gave the date of the deposit of Rs. 1,000/- as "November 28, 1962" instead of "November 28, 1964". The petitioner ascribes this discrepancy to mere typographical error. He then stated in his reply dated August 4, 1965 (Annexure C) that "the balance of Rs. 1079/- is being paid to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Banga, today (4th August 1965)". Though the petitioner claims to have paid out the amount to the said Officer on that very day, it was credited in the Treasury on August 19, 1965. In his said reply the petitioner also made it clear that the mention of his name in the original receipt for Rs. 1,000/- dated November 28, 1962, was due to a mistake on the part of the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and that he claimed no personal credit for the said contribution. On October 11, 1965, the petitioner forwarded to the Development and Panchayat Officer, Banga, with his letter of that date (Annexure D) attested copies of the four receipts by which the total amount had since been deposited in the National Defence Fund. Correct dates of deposit were admittedly given in the attested copies of the receipts. The petitioner had stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the matter was then considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, who came to the conclusion that the amount in question had been fully paid that there was no occasion to proceed any further against the petitioner. in the corresponding paragraph of the written statement, it has been averred by Shri Manohar Singh Gill, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, that it is correct that his pre-decessor had filed the matter apparently believing the explanation of the petitioner to be true which was, in fact, untrue in material particulars, as later scrutiny revealed that, according to the explanation of the petitioner, the sum of Rs. 1,000/- in dispute had been deposited on November 28, 1962; but, in fact, the said deposit had actually been made on November 28, 1964. Thereafter, Shri Kulwant Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner, who had exonerated the petitioner was transferred from Jullundur and was succeeded by Shri Manohar Singh Gill. According to the allegations in the writ petition, Shri Dilbagh Singh M.L.A. Banga, respondent No. 4 in these proceedings, nurtured some personal grudge against the petitioner, on account of which he mala fide moved the Deputy Commissioner to see the petitioner out of the public office held by him. Though Shri Dilbagh Singh, M.L.A., had been impleaded in this case, he does not appear to have been served with a notice of the writ petition. I have not considered it necessary to adjourn the case for notice being served on him, as I am not incined to go into the allegations of alleged interference into the matter by Shri Dilbagh Singh and the allegations of mala fides against him. It is wholly unnecessary to do so in this case, as the Deputy Commissioner has sworn in paragraph 7 of his written-statement that it was the Governor of the Punjab who had asked for a report from the Deputy Commissioner about this case during the month of September, 1966. Nor do the alleged mala fides of Dilbagh Singh, M.L.A., appear to be relevant for disposing of the legal questions which call for decision of the Court.

(3.) On 19th September, 1966, the new Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, issued a notice (Annexure-E) to the petitioner wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had made that mis-statement of facts in representing in his previous explanation that he had made a deposit of Rs. 1,000/- on November, 28, 1962, when in fact, he had made a deposit in question on the corresponding date in 1964. It was alleged that the petitioner had thus kept the amount belonging to the National Defence Fund with him for several years without any authority, which amounted to temporary embezzlement, besides causing loss to the Government on account of the interest on the amount in dispute for the period the same remained with the petitioner. This was alleged to constitute misconduct on the part of the petitioner, which disentitled him to be retained as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was called upon to explain the matter within ten days from the date of the receipt of the notice. Paragraph 2 of the notice is in the following terms :-