MANJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner(s) in the present case is that the impugned order dated 19.09.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, whereby the Deputy Commissioner had directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Dadri-II/respondent No.5 to assess the amount and recover the same from the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 53 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act'), is not only erroneous, but not sustainable.

(2.) Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation of the embezzlement made against the petitioner/Ex-Sarpanch was beyond 6 years as his tenure as Sarpanch was for the period of 2005-10 and the notice of the alleged embezzlement/misappropriation is of the year 2014. In view of the provisions of Section 53 (5) of the Act, no person shall be called upon to explain why he should not be required to make good any loss, after the expiry of six years from the occurrence of the loss, waste or mis-application or after the expiry of two years from his ceasing to be a Sarpanch or Panch, as the case may be, whichever is earlier. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the ratio decidendi culled out by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in "Gram Panchayat, Shahpur v. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department and others" 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 599 , thus, urges this Court for setting aside the impugned order, under challenge as there is gross illegality and perversity.

(3.) Mr. Saurabh Mohanta, DAG, Haryana submits that the order, under challenge, is perfectly legal and justified and does not call for interference. It is a clear cut finding with regard to the embezzlement/misappropriation against the petitioner and he cannot oust from it. An FIR on the basis of the complaint submitted by respondent No.7, had also registered against the petitioner with regard to the alleged disbursement of old-age pension, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the present writ petition by upholding the impugned order.