Mehar Singh vs The State of Punjab and another

D.S. Tewatia, J.—Mehar Singh son of Gurbux Singh resident of Chak Duawala Tehsil Muktsar, district Ferozepur, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) as challenged the legality of an order dated 2nd of April, 1970 (Annexure ''C'') by way of this petition, passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been removed from Sarpanchship of the id village to which offices he was elected in 1965. Respondent No. 2, director of Panchayats and Community Development, Punjab, Chandigarh, served upon him the statement of allegations on 2nd of December 1969 which were to the effect that the petitioner purchased one struck of bajri worth Rs. 250/- which, in fact, was not alleged to be lieded by the Panchayat and thereby caused a loss of Rs. 250/- to the panchayat. The other allegation in the charge-sheet was to the effect that the petitioner kept Rs. 100/- to Rs. 100/- belonging to the Panchayat from time to time and used the same for personal purpose whenever needed. This charge-sheet accompanied by show-cause notice required the petitioner to show-cause as to way he should not be removed from the office of Sarpanchship. The petitioner furnished his explanation, a copy of which he has put on the record as Annexure ''B'' The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order on the ground that Respondent No. 2 is not competent to pass the impugned order as it is the State Government alone competent to do so, that no proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to rebut the allegations by leading evidence in defense, that the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not properly considered and the impugned order was passed without the authority concerned applying us mind to it and that in the show-cause notice, it was not mentioned that the petitioner could be disqualified u/s 102 (3) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 and so the order of the Director of Panchayats disqualifying the petitioner was in excess of his power. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed this Court only on two points; first that the impugned order is illegal as the same has been passed without giving due consideration to the explanation furnished by the petitioner and the order in question has been passed by Respondent No. 2 without applying its mind to the material before it. For this submission, the learned counsel for the ` has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in the State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram Patanga, (1969) 71 P.L.R. 625 In that case the point for consideration before this Court was as to whether the order of removal of a Municipal Commissioner u/s 16 (1) (e) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was a quasi-judicial order and while passing such an order, the authority concerned acted in a quasi-judicial manner. Before proceeding with the consideration of the counsel''s submission, at this stage, for facility of reference, it would be desirable to notice the provision of Section 16 (1) (e) as also Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, and Section 102, Sub-section (2), Clause (d) and second proviso of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952:

(I) The State Government may by notification remove any member:

(e) If, in the opinion of the State Government he has flagrantly abused his position as a member of the committee or has through negligence or misconduct been responsible for the loss, or misapplication of any money or property of the committee.

(g) * * *

Provided that before the Slate Government notifies the removal of a member under this section, the reasons for his proposed removal shall be communicated to the member concerned, and he shall be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing.

102(2) Government may, after such enquiry as it may deem fit, remove any Panch -

(d) who in the opinion of the Government or of the officer to whom Government has delegated its powers of removal, has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties.

Provided further that before the Government notifies the removal of the panch under this Sub-section, the reasons for the purposed removal shall be communicated to the Panch concerned and he shall be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing.

A Comparative reading of the provisions of Section 16 (1) (e) and prov so to Clause (g) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and Section 102, sub Clause (d) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, would show that in both cases the authorities concerned have to form an opinion about the establishment of the ground mentioned in the relevant provisions of the two Acts respectively which warrants the removal of the Municipal Commissioner or a Panch or Sarpanch, as the case may be. and relevant provisions of both the Acts require that the person concerned shall be given an opportunity of tending an explanation in writing. Similarly two relevant provisions of both the Acts require that before the Government notifies the removal of a Panch or a member of the Municipal Committee, as the case may be, the reasons for the proposed removal shall be communicated to the Panch or the Member as the case may be. From the comparison of the relevant provisions of the two Acts, the position that emerges is that the provision regarding forming of an opinion by the authority concerned, furnishing or communication of the reasons for the proposed removal and giving an opportunity tendering an explanation in writing are Pari materia and so if the order passed u/s 16 (I) (e) of the Punjab Municipal Act removing Municipal Commissioner is to be considered a quasi judicial order and, the authority passing the order of removal is required to act in a quasi-judicial manner, indicating in its order the outlines of it reasoning by which it reached its decision, then an order of remova passed Sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Gram Panchayat Act has also to be treated as a quasi-judical order and Respondent No. 2 is required to act in quasi, judicial manner and it is expected of him to pass a speaking order. Though it is not necessary that he should write a detailed judgment as a Court, would do, yet he must indicate as to how the explanation offered is unsatisfactory. It is also not necessary that this reasoning should be incorporated in the formal order but it will office if on the file the explanation is discussed and reason recorded for considering the explanation to be unsatisfactory which could how that the authority concerned has applied its mind, has considered the material placed on the record, and has not passed the impugned order mechanically. In this case I find that in the order of removal, Respondent No. 2 has merely recited the charges and has merely mentioned that after perusing the explanation and the other material on the record, he satisfied himself that the charges are established. He has not given any reasons as to how the explanation offered by the Sarpanch is unsatisfactory. Nor do I find and discussion on the file about the same. I, therefore, hold that the ratio of the Full Bench decision of this Court is applicable to the present case and so I quash the impugned order as being illegal, having been passed without due compliance of the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Act, and allow the writ petition with costs.