Bakhshish Singh vs Divisional Dy.Director, Panchayat

S.S. Kang, J.—At issue in this writ petition is the validity of the orders dated March 20, 1978 (copy of which is annexed as P1) of the Divisional Deputy Director, Panchayats, Punjab, Jullundur, ordering the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to take action against the petitioners under section 105 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (for short ''the Act'').

The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition lie in a narrow compass:

An inquiry under section 102(1) of the Act was held by the District Development & Panchayat Officer and a report to this effect was submitted to the Divisional Deputy Director, Panchayats Raj and Development, Ferozepore, on December 7, 1977, who held the petitioners guilty on two charges :

(I) that he showed an excess of Rs 849.12 as expenses on the construction of the boundary wall of the school according to the assessment of the Block Overseer and in this way embezzled this amount;

(II) that he showed an expense of Rs.1,400/ for levelling the land while no levelling was done.

A showcause notice was given to the Sarpanch. He submitted a reply thereto. The Divisional Deputy Director, Panchayats, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of Director of Panchayats took up the matter. He exonerated the Sarpanch on the first charge. Regarding the second charge, he held that Rs. 1,400/ were alleged to have been spent for levelling the Panchayat lands at a time when crops were standing thereon. He further held that the entire Panchayat had done the job. He exonerated the Sarpanch on charge No. II also but at the same time directed that the Development and Panchayat Officer should take action under section 105 of the Act. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present petition.

In the present case, the petitionersPanchayat members along with the Sarpanch had granted a sanction to the Sarpanch to spend Rs. 1400/ for levelling the lands of the Gram Panchayat. It was the duty of the Sarpanch to implement the resolution and to get the levelling done. Under rule 23 of the Gram Panchayat Rules, the Sarpanch alone is authorised to operate the accounts of the Panchayat. It was he alone who could only withdraw the money from the Panchayat fund and spend it in accordance with the resolution. He had to get the levelling done. The other members of the Panchayat did not come into the picture. They had no authority to get the levelling done. The money had to be and was in fact disbursed by the Sarpanch. If he had failed to perform his duty, it was he who was responsible for that. Petitioners who were members of the Panchayat cannot be held responsible. In Thakur Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1983 PLJ 481 : 1985 R.R.R. 504, it was held that it was the responsibility of the Sarpanch to see that the funds of the Panchayat are properly utilized. It is not the function of the entire Panchayat to carry out various assignments in accordance with the resolutions. The Panchayat funds are operatable only by the Panchayat sarpanch. The following observations on this part of the case are very pertinent and cover the present case also :

"As regards the objection raised by the learned counsel that no personal liability in this behalf could be placed upon the petitioner ( the sarpanch) a perusal of Rule 23 of the Gram Panchayat Rules would show that the Gram Panchayat funds are operatable only by the Sarpanch. The mere fact that there were resolutions of the Panchayat did not absolve the Sarpanch of his responsibility to see that the funds withdrawn for such purpose, are properly and fully utilised. Indeed, it is not the function of the entire Panchayat to carry out the various assignments in accordance with the resolutions. The petitioner who was a Sarpanch at the relevant time, handled the Panchayat funds and if any default or irregularity is made in this connection, as has been found in the impugned orders, the correctness or otherwise of the same cannot be agitated under the extraordinary powers of this Court."

The order suffers from another infirmity. The proceedings had been taken against Maghar Singh, Sarpanch. The petitioners were not a party thereto Still a finding was given that the entire Panchayat had done the job. The decision had been give against the petitioners without hearing them. Previously, the Deputy Director, Panchayats had exonerated the Panchayat and passed orders against the petitioners.

As a result, this writ petition is allowed with cost and impugned orders dated March 20, 1978 (Annexure P1) of the Divisional Deputy Director, Panchayats, Jullundur, are quashed. Counsel fee Rs.200/.