OM PARKASH SARPANCH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing the orders Annexures-P.9 dated 4.3.1999 and P.10 dated 2.6.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa (respondent No. 1) and the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department (respondent No. 2) respectively under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter described as 'the Act').

(2.) SOME of the facts on which there is no dispute between the parties are that on receipt of a complaint allegations of commission of irregularities by the petitioner, the Block Development and Panchayats Officer, Sirsa made a preliminary enquiry. He found that as many as 14 allegations have been found prima facie established against him. After considering the report of preliminary enquiry, respondent No. 1 issued notice dated 21.1.1998 to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why action be not taken against him under Section 51 of the Act. In his reply dated 16.2.1998, the petitioner not only controverted the allegations levelled against him but also challenged the findings recorded by the District Development and Panchayats Officer. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 passed two orders on 18.3.1998, one for holding regular enquiry against the petitioner under Section 51(3) of the Act and the other for his suspension under Section 51(1)(b) of the Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 51(5) of the Act was dismissed by respondent No. 2 by order dated 1.6.1998. Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 16.2.1998 and 1.6.1998, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 9837 of 1998 titled as Om Parkash v. State of Haryana. When the said petition was taken up for hearing on 17.8.1998, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Haryana made a statement that the order dated 1.6.1998 passed by respondent No. 2 may be deemed to have been withdrawn and the matter shall be decided afresh after hearing the petitioner. In view of that statement, the writ petition was disposed of by the Court as infructuous with a direction that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 should appear before respondent No. 2 on September 7, 1998. By an order dated 28.9.1998, respondent No. 2 accepted the petitioner's appeal and remanded the case to respondent No. 1. Operative portion of that order reads as under : "In view of the above mentioned discussion, the impugned suspension order is set aside

(3.) IN the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 through Dr. Avtar Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa, an attempt has been made to justify the suspension of the petitioner on the premises that the allegations found prima facie proved against him are quite serious and the continuance of the petitioner in the office of Sarpanch is not in the interest of the Gram Panchayat.