AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The Petitioner a Sarpanch-com-plains that he was arbitrarily removed from his office u/s 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Brief facts may be noticed.
In the year 1994 a charge-sheet was served on the Petitioner. The following charges were levelled:
That the auction of plot No. 3 and 4 as held by Sarpanch was of Rs. 61,000/-and the entry in the Patta/Lease Register was of Rs. 24,950/-. This auction was for the period of two years. Thus for the period of two years there was misappropriation of Rs. 72,300/-. Therefore, the Sarpanch is guilty of misappropriation of the Panchayat fund.
That the Sarpanch gave to one Sube Singh Harijan the 1/2 land of the total number of 5500 but the Sarpanch did not deposit this amount to the Panchayat fund. Thus the Sarpanch was guilty of misappropriation.
That the house of the Sarpanch situates in Plot No. 785 and that in his house there is extra area of 462 sq. yards. In this way the owners of four plots namely, 384, 848, 10, 285 sq. yards is in excess. Therefore the Sarpanch is guilty of unauthorised possession of the Panchayat land.
That other people of the village are in unauthorised possession of the Samlat land of the Panchayat but for the removal of the unauthorised possession, the Sarpanch did not support/supplied any proceedings and for which he is guilty.
On August 25, 1994 the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Sonepat was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Vide his report dated May 19, 1995 the Inquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. Thereupon a show-cause notice dated August 29, 1995 was served on the Petitioner. He was called upon the explain as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Sarpanch. The Petitioner submitted his reply on September 13, 1995. He was granted personal hearing by the Director of Panchayats on November 10, 1995. On consideration of the matter, the Director found that charges 1, 2 and 4 were fully proved. He further found that "these charges are so serious that the continuance of Shri Randhir Singh on the post of Sarpanch is not in the public interest." Consequently, the Orders for his removal u/s 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, were passed. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government. Vide its order dated October 20, 1997, the appellate authority rejected the Petitioner''s appeal. Hence this petition.
The Petitioner alleges that the order of his removal from the office of Sarpanch is wholly illegal and arbitrary. It is based on no evidence. Thus, it is liable to be quashed. He prays that the order passed by the Director, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P4, and that passed by the Government, copy of which is at Annexure P1. be quashed.
The Respondents contest the Petitioner''s claim. The averments as made in the writ petition have been controverted.
Learned Counsel for the parties we have been heard.
On behalf of the Petitioner it has been contended that there was no evidence to support the first charge levelled against the Petitioner. It was the duty of the Gram Sachiv to issue the receipt. The receipt for the amount paid by the complaint having been issued, it could not be said that the first charge had been proved. It has also been contended that the appellate authority has erred in recording a finding that the signatures of Surinder Singh had been forged. On these premises it has been contended that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. The claim made on behalf of the Petitioner has been controverted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents.
The short question that arises for consideration is that - was there no evidence to support the first charge?
As noticed above, the charge against the Petitioner was that plot Nos. 3 and 4 had been auctioned for an amount of Rs. 61,000/-. However, these were wrongly shown as having been auctioned for Rs. 24,950/- During the period of two years, an amount of Rs. 72,300/- was alleged to have been misappropriated. The Inquiry Officer, who had gone into the matter, had noticed the evidence of Sh. Mahavir Singh, who had stated that the plots had been auctioned for Rs. 61,000/- per year. However, the Petitioner had shown the amount to be Rs. 24,950/- Still further, Surinder Singh son of Bani Singh and Jai Parkash son of Piare Lal had also made statements to a similar effect. There was also evidence that in the subsequent auction, these very plots had fetched an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On consideration of this evidence, the inquiry Officer has found that the actual bid was for Rs. 61,000/-. The claim of the Petitioner that the lease was for a sum of Rs. 24,950/- was not correct. The charge was held to have been proved. This Finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer was affirmed by the Director as well as the appellate authority. On a perusal of these documents it is clear that there was evidence on record to support the charge. That being so, the claim made on behalf of the Petitioner that the charge cannot be said to have been proved, is untenable.
It deserves mention that the writ court cannot examine the matter as if it is hearing an appeal, Sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence is not the scope of writ proceedings. Apparently, there is evidence in support of the charge. This evidence has been duly considered by the competent authorities. The finding based thereon cannot be said to be perverse. The view taken was a possible one. In this situation, the contention that the fining is vitiated cannot be sustained.
It also deserves mention that even though an argument has been raised with regard to the first charge, learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not point out the slightest infirmity, regarding findings recorded in respect of charge Nos. 2 and 4. Thus the action of the Respondents in recording the findings against the Petitioner in support of the charges calls for no interference.
It is undoubtedly true that the appellate authority has made an observation with regard to the signatures of Surinder Singh having been forged. This is only in the context of recapitulation of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. It cannot be said that merely because an observation regarding the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer has been made, the order passed by the appellate authority violates the rule enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported as O. Bharatan Vs. K. Sudhakaran and another, , that the observation is the foundation of the finding. Otherwise, the finding recorded by the Director, has been upheld by the appellate authority.
Equally, the fact that the Gram Sachiv has issued a receipt for Rs. 24,950/- does not exculpate the Petitioner. The Gram Sachiv could have issued a receipt for an amount which the Petitioner had told him to issue.
No other point was raised.
In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.