The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the removal of the petitioner as Panchayat Pradhan. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of ill health as an excuse, upholding the inquiry officer's factual finding of fund mis-utilization under Article 227 as unassailable.
The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.81 of 2005
Date of decision: 8.12.2010
Saran Dass.
…. Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P.
….. Respondent
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner: Mr.K.S.Banyal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General.
_____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)
2
Panchayat, Chhatrari, he was directed to over-see the functioning of four construction works, i.e., (i) one room, Primary School, Chhatrari (ii) Pucca street Barneli, (iii) three rooms, Primary School, Dundei and (iv) toilet in Middle School, Chhatrari. A total amount of Rs.2,84,000/- was allotted to the petitioner for such works. The petitioner did not complete the aforesaid works and his explanation was called for. The first explanation was called for in the year 2003 and the petitioner replied that out of these works, three are almost complete and one will be completed in a short span of time. According to him, since his wife was unwell and he himself had remained ill for almost six months, he could not get these works completed within the stipulated time. A similar reply was sent by him in response to the letter dated 2.6.2004 sent by the District Panchayat Officer, Chamba on 8.6.2004. It appears that thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.7.2004.
3
suspension orders had to be affixed at his residence and in the office of Gram Panchayat Office, Chhatrari and, therefore, the petitioner was deemed to be suspended.
4
pit and stones, no work was found to have been done at all. Thereafter, a copy of the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 24.12.2004 and he was given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of Pradhan. The petitioner did not care to reply to the show cause before the concerned authority and, therefore, ex parte action was taken and impugned order was issued.
5
other hand claim that he is not responsible for the delay in the construction of such works. These are public monies made available to the petitioner for the development of public works. In this case, the inquiry officer has found that out of the total amount of Rs.2,84,000/- allocated to the petitioner, Rs.1,48,900/was actually utilized and Rs.1,35,100/- was mis-utilized. This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be disturbed in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
December 8, 2010 (m)
( Deepak Gupta ) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's removal as Pradhan was sustainable when the inquiry officer made a factual finding regarding mis-utilization of public funds that the court applied under Article 227.
Whether the petitioner's ill health could constitute a valid excuse for failing to comply with inquiries and complete allocated public works.
Saran Dass
State of H.P.
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
