NARAIN SINGH Vs. D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Dy. District Development Officer Pali dated 17-3-1983 Ann. 17 whereby it was held that Shri Gordhansingh Up-Sarpanch and Shri Khinvsingh Ward Panch did not remain absent in five consecutive meetings of Gram Panchayat, Piliwani and consequently their seats cannot be declared vacant and they did not cease to be members u/s.17(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that Shri Gordhan Singh and Shri Khinvsingh did not attend the meetings of the Panchayat held on 10-8-82, 17-8-82, 24-8-82 and 31-8-82. Thereupon for the fifth meeting notices were given to both of them. According to the petitioner despite service of notices, the fifth meeting held on 28-9-1982 was also not attended by them. One more opportunity was given to both of them to attend the sixth meeting vide resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 28-9-1982 Ann. 3. Thereafter fresh notices for sixth meeting were given to them but they refused to take the notices. Thereupon the notices were affixed on their inhabited houses and as they did not attend the sixth meeting a resolution was passed in the meeting held on 5-10-1982 Ann. 5 for taking action against them under section 17(2). The recommendation was made by them to the Addl. District Development Officer, Pali vide Ann. 6 dated 5-10-1982. Thereafter enquiry was conducted under Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat General Rules, 1961. The earlier enquiry was conducted by one Kishanpuri who recorded the finding in favour of the Panchayat and against the alleged absentee members but a fresh enquiry was conducted by the Assistant District Development Officer who recorded a different finding. According to him absence of the members was not proved in five consecutive meetings. The Dy. District Development Officer on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Assistant District Development Officer passed the order Ann. 17 which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The first contention which is advanced on behalf of the petitioner, is that under rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules, the enquiry could be conducted by the Dy. District Development Officer and no enquiry can be conducted by any other Officer. The order dated 17-3-1983 passed by the Dy. District Development Officer is bad inasmuch as the same is not based on the enquiry conducted by him but it proceeds on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Assistant District Development Officer.