LAWS(P&H)-2018-4-76

ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Decided On April 06, 2018
ASHOK KUMAR Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of impugned order dated 16.03.2018 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.1, whereby, the order of revocation of suspension of the petitioner on the post of Sarpanch has been set aside.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in the elections held in the month of January, 2016. A complaint was made against him by one Harjit Singh, which was marked to Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jagadhri for conducting an enquiry into the context of complaint. After conducting an enquiry, the report was sent to District Development and Panchayat Officer, Yamuna Nagar, wherein, charge Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 were not proved. However, it was recommended that the complaint be filed as the complainant failed to produce any evidence in support of the allegations. Thereafter, again a complaint was made by one Capt. Kirpal Singh Sandhu and sought re-enquiry in the matter. Said complaint was reenquired. A preliminary enquiry report was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar on 203.2017. The petitioner was held guilty with regard to allegation Nos. 4 and 6 to 8. On the basis of report in the enquiry, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1994"), whereby, the petitioner was asked to file response within a period of ten days. Thereafter, another show-cause notice dated 06.04.2017 was issued vide which the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3, 36, 400/-. Reply of Show-Cause Notice was submitted by the petitioner but finding it to be unsatisfactory, he was placed under suspension. Apart from placing the petitioner under suspension, an FIR was also registered. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 51(5) of the Act, 1994 and the impugned order was stayed. Ultimately, the said appeal was dismissed on 07.07.2017 by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department, Haryana, Chandigarh. However, a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar to complete the regular enquiry within a period of one month by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the petitioner also deposited the alleged amount on 11.04.2017 under protest. Petitioner was reinstated as a temporary measure during pendency of the regular enquiry. Subsequently, the order of re-instatement was revoked vide order dated 16.03.2018, which is subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the complaint filed against the petitioner was enquired into and he was not found to be involved. Subsequently, on the same set of allegations, another complaint was made against him and thereafter, the order of enquiry was passed. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension and the amount was deposited under protest. A specific ground was raised that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order placing him under suspension was passed. Said order was challenged in the appeal which was accepted vide order dated 14.12.2017 and the case was remanded to the BDPO with the direction to give personal hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the allegations against the petitioner, on the basis of which FIR was registered, were false and the investigation conducted was not taken into consideration. Subsequently, the order of suspension was revoked keeping in view the earlier enquiry. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lodging of FIR was misuse of process of law as the same was lodged without taking into consideration the allegations in the complaint and enquiry report earlier conducted. The order of revocation of suspension was contrary to the facts and findings recorded in the enquiry.