JEET RAM Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner prays for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order removing him from the office of Sarpanch and debarring him from contesting elections to any office of the Panchayat for three years.

(2.) The Petitioner held the office of Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat, Kanair, Tehsil Kandaghat. The Director of Panchayats, Himachal Pradesh served a notice dated May 31, 1968 on the Petitioner stating that on enquiry made by the Assistant Director of Panchayat in April, 1968 on a complaint made against the Petitioner, it had been found that he was guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties on five counts detailed in the notice and directed him to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of Panch of the aforesaid Panchayat under Sec. 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. The Petitioner replied to the notice on June 27, 1968 and explained the circumstances in which he had acted in respect of the facts mentioned in each count. He denied that he was guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties. Thereafter, on October 11, 1968 the Director of Panchayats made an order under Sec. 102 (2) of the aforesaid Act stating that it was expedient to conduct a further enquiry in the matter against the Petitioner, and he appointed the Sub -Divisional Officer (C), Kandaghat as the enquiry officer for that purpose. Subsequently, it appears the Sub -Divisional Officer expressed his inability to discharge that function and consequently on May 31, 1969 the Director of Panchayats appointed the Tehsildar Kandaghat in his place as the enquiry officer. The Tehsildar Kandaghat, conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the Director of Panchayats. On June 30, 1970 the Director of Panchayats issued a notice to the Petitioner intimating that the Petitioner had been found guilty in the discharge of his duties on three of the five counts. They were:

(3.) while leasing out the lands from out of the shamlat -deh in Sari he had not kept in view the grazing rights of the people of that area with the result that public of that area has been put to great inconvenience in so far as their grazing rights were concerned.