Hari Krishan vs State of Punjab and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner is a Panch and has approached for action against respondent No. 5, who was elected as Sarpanch of the Village. The petitioner would term the Sarpanch to be a notorious type of person, who is misusing the funds and property of the Village. The allegation now made against respondent No. 5 is that he had illegally cut five Safeda trees standing on the Panchayat land without approval of the Forest Department for his personal gain. Since the petitioner was not towing the line of respondent No. 5 and, thus, filed a complaint against cutting of these trees illegally. The District Development and Panchayat Officer marked an enquiry on 24.7.2009. In the preliminary enquiry in the matter, it was found that respondent No. 5 had illegally cut the trees without any approval. The matter was accordingly sent to the Director Development and Panchayat Officer. On the basis of this preliminary enquiry, respondent No. 5 was suspended. The Director asked the Additional Deputy Commissioner to conduct further enquiry into the same, when it was found that Sarpanch had not taken approval for cutting the trees and he found him guilty for the same.

Agreeing with the enquiry report, the Director removed respondent No. 5 from the office of Sarpanch. Aggrieved against the same, respondent No. 5 filed an appeal, which has been accepted. The petitioner accordingly has approached this Court against this order.

Separate replies have been filed on behalf of official respondents and respondent No. 5.

The Appellate Authority has justified the order passed in appeal, which is so passed in exercise of quasi-judicial powers. The finding returned by the Financial Commissioner is that Block Development and Panchayat Officer has mentioned that the trees had fallen due to wind storm and were not cut. Respondent No. 5 allegedly had kept the cut trees on to a side carefully for putting them to auction.

Plea is that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), while holding a regular enquiry, has over looked the statement of Secretary and respondent No. 5 and has statedly given this report in a one sided manner. The factual finding as returned by the appellate Authority would not, thus, call for any interference upon re-appreciation of evidence and facts. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is, therefore, made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.