AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who happens to be resident of Village, Tahliwali has filed this petition challenging the order dated 15.7.2008 passed by the financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Development Panchayat Department, Chandigarh in appeal under Section 51(5) of the Haryana Panchayti Raj Act, 1994. Respondent No. 3 was the elected Sarpanch of the Chain Panchayat of Village Tahliwali Tehsil District Fatehabad. One Jarnail Singh lodged a complaint against Respondent No. 3 for embezzlement of the pension of her sister Parmeshwari. On the basis of the complaint, Jarnail Singh son of Fauja Singh resident of Tahliwali Dhani, an enquiry was entrusted to District Social Officer, Fatehabad. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the report and returned a finding that Respondent No. 3 has embezzled the pension of Smt. Parmeshwari for six months from February 2007 to March 2007 and May, 2007 to June, 2007. This pension Was not disbursed to Parmeshwari who was otherwise re-married in February, 2007. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry, Respondent No. 3 was put to notice with the following allegation :

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 was asked to reply to the show-cause notice. He submitted his reply wherein it is stated that Parmeshwari Devi herself was drawing the pension and thereafter she went to Punjab and asked on telephone to give her widow pension to her, brother Jarnail Singh. He further took stand in the reply that the pension was given by his son at his home. Respondent No. 3 also stated than he had no knowledge that Parmeshwari Devi was re-married and after dining to know this fact, he deposited the amount in the Panchayat. After receipt of the reply, a charge-sheet dated 15.1.2008 was served upon Respondent No. 3 and a regular enquiry was held. On conclusion of the regular enquiry again, a show-cause notice was issued to Respondent No.3 and he was ordered to be removed from the post of Sarpanch, after affording opportunity of personal hearing.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for Respondent No. 3 has further argued that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is one of the Panches of the Village and resident thereof. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner is not a Panch, the embezzlement could be brought to the notice of the authorities and to this Court also by any citizen. It is pertinent to say, Respondent No. 3 being a public man, a duty' was enjoined upon him to deal with public fund with caution and honest. On consideration of the reply of Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad vide order dated 13.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) recorded specific finding that the charge has been proved against Respondent No. 3 in the regular enquiry. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before Respondent No. 1 who has passed the impugned order setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and reinstated Respondent No. 3 to the post of Sarpanch. Respondent No. 1 recorded following findings :-