Smt. Chander Kanta vs State of Haryana and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 26.3.1999 and 7.6.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani (respondent No. 2) and the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department (respondent No. 1) respectively leading to her removal from the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Achina, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhawani.

The facts necessary for deciding this petition are that on receipt of a complaint that she had embezzled the funds of the Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 2 ordered an enquiry against the petitioner u/s 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). He appointed the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Charkhi Dadri (respondent No. 3) as Enquiry Officer. After making a detailed enquiry, respondent No. 3 submitted report Annexure P.1 with the finding that the petitioner is guilty of misusing Rs. 11,255/- from Panchayat fund. On receipt of the report, respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice to the petitioner proposing her removal from the office of Sarpanch. She filed a detailed reply to controvert the finding recorded by the enquiring authority. After considering the same along with the record of enquiry, respondent No. 2 passed order dated 26.3.1999 for the petitioner''s removal from the office of Sarpanch. Her appeal has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 7.6.1999.

Shri Mani Ram Verma argued that the petitioner''s removal is liable to be declared as nullity because the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is perverse. He submitted that while approving the finding recorded by the enquiring authority, respondents No. 1 and 2 did not correctly appreciate the points raised in the reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice. He submitted that the appellate order should be quashed because respondent No. 1 decided the petitioner''s appeal by holding her guilty of alleged mis-conduct which was not subject matter of enquiry.

The learned Deputy Advocate General and Mrs. Daya Chaudhary supported the impugned orders and urged that the writ petition be dismissed summarily because the two authorities have concurrently held the petitioner guilty of misappropriating the panchayat fund.

A careful reading of the impugned order shows that respondent No. 2 ordered the petitioner''s removal from the post of Sarpanch by holding her guilty of having embezzled Rs. 11,255/-. However, respondent No. 1 did not advert to this aspect of the matter. Instead, he dismissed the appeal by holding the petitioner guilty of violating Rule 13(1)(a) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Finance, Budget, Accounts, Audit, Taxation and Works Rules, 1996(hereinafter referred to as ''the 1996 Rules''). In our opinion, it will not be appropriate to express any opinion on the merits and demerits of the finding recorded by the enquiring authority and respondent No. 2 because we are fully convinced that the appellate order deserves to be quashed with a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the petitioner''s appeal afresh. Shri Mani Ram Verma, in our view, is right in submitting that the appellate authority has travelled beyond the scope of the charge levelled against the petitioner and the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and condemned her by presuming that she was guilty of acting in violation of Rule 13 of the 1996 Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner was neither charged with the allegation of having acted in violation of Rule 13 of the 1996 Rules nor any evidence was produced before the enquiry officer to prove that she had violated the said rule. Moreover, she did not get any opportunity to defend herself against the charge of violation of Rule 13. In view of this, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner''s appeal has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and she has been condemned unheard.

We are further of the opinion that being a quasi-judicial authority, respondent No. 1 was duty bound to consider the points raised by the petitioner in her appeal and decide the same by recording cogent reasons. Apparently, respondent No. 1 has failed to do this. We, therefore, hold that the appellate order is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but it also suffers from an error of law warranting interference by the High Court.

In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 7.6.1999, passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside with a direction that the petitioner''s appeal be decided afresh within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 30.7.1999.