DIN DAYAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shamsher Bahadur, J. - In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Din Dyal had challenged his removal from the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Hassanpur by order of the Director of Panchayats passed on 8th June, 1965, under sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act 1952 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) It is common ground that the petitioner was elected a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Hassanpur in the elections held in 1958, and was re-elected to that office in consequence of the subsequent elections held in 1960 and 1964. The petitioner was served with a notice on 4th of August, 1964, to show cause why he should not be suspended from the office of Sarpanch under sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Act. The petitioner furnished an explanation which obviously did not satisfy the authorities concerned who asked him again to show cause why he should not be removed from the office under sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the act. Again, the petitioner submitted an explanation and also filed a writ petition in this Court, Din Dyal v. State of Punjab, Civil Writ No. 2353 of 1964, which was dismissed by Dua, J. On 29th January, 1965 as withdrawn on the assurance that the decision on the removal of the petitioner would be finalised within a month. The enquiry against the petitioner not having been finalised within a month, as assured by the Advocate-General, who appeared for the State, the petitioner again moved an application (Civil Miscellaneous No. 1170 of 1965) and this time Dua, J. passed an order on 21st May, 1965, fixing the writ petition after the vacation, the Advocate-General again having made a submission to the Court that the orders on the enquiry would be finalised soon.

(3.) What happened was that on 1st of May, 1965, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Palwal (respondent No. 5) was appointed an Inquiry Officer and had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings though his grievance is that some of the essential witnesses had not been examined. The inquiry Officer made a report on 13th of May, 1965, in pursuance of which the Deputy Commissioner made a recommendation to the Director of Panchayats for the removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. The Deputy Commissioner in his communication of 14th of May, 1965 to the Director of Panchayats stated that :-