This writ petition challenged the removal of the petitioner from his post as Sarpanch following a regular enquiry. The petitioner alleged illiteracy and misrepresentation by the Secretary but relied on them to prove collective guilt. The court rejected pleas of embezzlement discrepancies, dismissed the petition, and upheld the removal order.
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.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10775 OF 2011 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 16, 2012
Brij Lal
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Brar, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State.
Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate for Mr. S. K. Singla, Advocate, for respondent Nos.7 to 9.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The meeting of Panchayat under the Chairmanship of the petitioner was held from time to time and resolutions were passed for spending various grants, which were received by the Panchayat. Respondent Nos.6 to 9, who are the Panches with the petitioner, ultimately made a complaint against the petitioner for embezzlement of funds. As per the petitioner, this was because of the reason that he refused to give them `10,000/- out of the Government grant. On the basis of the complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate conducted an
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10775 OF 2011 :{ 2 }:
enquiry into the matter and submitted his report before respondent No.4. A show cause notice was then issued to the petitioner on the basis of report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice. On 12.4.2010, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner filed an appeal against his suspension order, which was dismissed on 27.9.2010.
Thereafter, a regular enquiry was conducted by respondent No.3. On the basis of regular enquiry, a notice was issued under Section 20(1) and (2) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch on 18.11.2010. The appeal filed against the order of removal was dismissed on 28.2.2011. The petitioner thereafter has approached this Court through the present writ petition to challenge the order of his removal.
The submission by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an illiterate person and basically has been misled by the Secretary Panchayat to sign on certain documents etc. It is also stated that it was collective decision of all members and the petitioner alone can not be held responsible. The petitioner pleads that he has not done embezzlement of any grant, which was received. All grants were duly spent. Primarily, it is submitted that it is only on account of the illiteracy of the petitioner that he has suffered.
I have considered the submissions so made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts on record, however, would show
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10775 OF 2011 :{ 3 }:
that grant of 3lacs was received for streets and drains under the Narega Scheme. The allegations made against the petitioner were enquired into and were proved from the findings of the enquiry held in this case. Otherwise also, in the reply filed it is disclosed that the petitioner, in connivance with Baljit Singh, Secretary, embezzled a sum of 22,400/- in the purchase of bricks; 20,000/- in Narega Scheme and 10,000/- out of Government grant of 3 lacs. The petitioner had not deposited a sum of 4,000/- received from the auction of trees and had misused his position in embezzling the grant. On the basis of the regular enquiry, it is found that the Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution for purchase of 80,000 bricks from Dhillon BKO Bagha. The purchase rate was shown as 2080/and the carriage was separately paid. During the course of enquiry, it was found that the bricks were purchased at the rate of 1950/- per thousand and the Panchayat Secretary, by taking advantage had entered wrong entries in the record. Since there is a factual finding against the petitioner, the defence being what is projected, can not be accepted on any legal parameters. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, therefore, is made out.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
November 16, 2012 khurmi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ jurisdiction should be exercised to set aside the order removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Brij Lal
The State of Punjab and others
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
