Nand Lal vs State of Punjab and others

M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

The petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, was an ex Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Manewal. He came to hold the charge as a Sarpanch because of the incumbent Baldev Singh having been suspended from November 2, 1970 onwards. He remained a Sarpanch till June 26, 1972, but actually relinquished charge on July 18, 1972 by when new elections had taken place and one Lachhman Singh had been elected the Sarpanch, who had taken oath on that date. Thus, the petitioner continued to act as a Sarpanch till July 18, 1972. During that while, the petitioner had expended some money from the Panchayat funds. The Social Education and panchayat Officer, Balachaur, held an enquiry with regard to the expenses incurred. His report was adverse to the petitioner. Acting on that report, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Balachaur, exercising the powers under section 105(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') issued an order/notice (Annexure P3) to the petitioner on July 11, 1973. According to the petitioner, he received it on July 20, 1973. In the said order, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer had observed that the petitioner had caused the loss of Rs. 4,282.05 paise to the Panchayat negligently or intentionally for which he was responsible. Holding the petitioner responsible, it was ordered therein that if he wanted to say anything in his defence, he should personally appear on July 18, 1973, failing which the order was to be final. It seems that no order was passed on July 18, 1973, as proposed. The petitioner, however, vide representation (Annexure P4) objected to the finalisation of the figure of loss. It appears that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, then on March 11, 1974 (Annexure P1) gave decision against the petitioner after taking into consideration all material and reduced the loss to the figure of Rs. 2,143.57 paise. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Assistant Director, Jullundur Division at Chandigarh, who vide his order dated June 17, 1974 (Annexure P2) further reduced the figure of loss to Rs. 714.52 paise. On the partial acceptance of the appeal, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer required the petitioner, vide letter Annexure P4, to pay the amount of Rs.714.52 paise in the Panchayat fund, as, otherwise, the recovery would be effected as arrears of land revenue. This gave cause to the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this petition.

The broad facts of the case are not disputed, though the petitioner additionally has pleaded material that in fact the money expended by him, had properly been explained by him while getting it accounted. And further that the matter had not been judged on merits properly. These aspects of the case cannot weigh with this Court in a petition like the present one. Keeping those apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a twofold contention, (1) that the petitioner was served by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer after the expiry of a period of one year from his ceasing to be a member of the Panchayat and as such the process was barred by time under subsection (4) of section 105 of the Act, (2) that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer had prejudged the matter while issuing him order/notice by holding therein that the petitioner was responsible for the excess expenditure of Rs. 4,282.05 paise.

As has been noticed earlier, the impugned action was initiated on July 11, 1973, whereas the petitioner had ceased to be acting Sarpanch on July 18, 1972, as per return of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, on which date oath was administered to the newly elected Sarpanch Lachhman Singh. The action against the petitioner could thus be taken on or before July 18, 1973. In the instant case, the action was initiated by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer on July 11, 1973, within a period of one year, as envisaged under subsection (4) of section 105 of the Act. The provision may well be noted here :

"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no person shall be called upon to explain why he should not be required to make good any loss, after the expiry of four years from the occurrence of the loss, waste or misapplication, or after the expiry of one year from his ceasing to be a member, whichever is earlier".

Now, the petitioner ceased to be a member not on account of the fresh elections having taken place, but he ceased to be a member only on the date when he laid down office in favour of his successor. The return specifically mentions that the petitioner remained the acting Sarpanch till July 18, 1972. When the action was taken within a period of one year, it is immaterial if the petitioner was served thereafter on July 20, 1972. And the purpose of the notice sent was to apprise the petitioner as to what was the defalcation alleged against him and to show cause for the purpose. Thus, on the first limb of the argument, the petitioner has no legs to stand. Equally so, on the second limb, the order/notice (Annexure P3), though worded in a language to convey that the matter had been prejudged, was not so rigorous or prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner inasmuch as he showed cause against it successfully by getting reduced the proposed loss to a figure of Rs. 2,143.57 paise. This is clear from the order Annexure P1 passed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer in a reasoned manner. The figure was further reduced to Rs. 714.52 paise by the Assistant Director on appeal, who, too, passed a very exhaustive order giving reasons. Neither ground being of any substance, there is no option but to deny the relief to the petitioner as claimed for. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.