District Social Welfare Officer Panipat (Sh. R.S. Hooda) & Ors. Vs Rishi Pal (Ex. Sarpanch)

Th e present Regular Second App e al is directed against the judg m ent and decree da t ed 4.11.2016 passed by the l earned Additional District Ju d ge, Panipat, where b y the appeal filed by the plai n tiff/respondent No.1- Rishipal w as partly allowed a nd the judgment and decree da t ed 12.3.2015 passed by the lear n ed Civil Judge (Ju n ior Division), Panipat dismissi n g the plaintiff’s suit was set asi d e. Brief facts

¶16

Th e plaintiff/respondent No.1- Ri s hi Pal was an elected Sarpanc h of Village Palheri , District Panipat, for two co n secutive terms between 2000 and 2010. The cas e of the plaintiff was that ce r tain letters bearing No.331 d a ted 10.1.2013 and r eminder No.1566 dated 1.2.201 3 were issued by the District Social TRIPTI SAINIWelfare Office r , Panipat, calling upon him to deposit an amount of Rs.66,7 0 6/2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

RSA-1070-2017 (O&M) - 2 -

¶18

towards the wi d ow pension wrongly drawn by defendant No.3 Smt. Kamlesh and Rs.49,107/- to w ards helpless pension wrongl y drawn by defendant No.4 S mt. Shanti, along w i th interest at the rate of 12% pe r annum. According to the plain t iff, these letters we r e wholly illegal, null and void and not binding upon his right s in any manner. Hi s stand was that the pensions ha d been sanctioned by the compe t ent authorities in a c cordance with the Governme n t procedure and he had no rol e in recommending t he names of the proforma defe n dants. He claimed that the tas k of Sarpanch was limited to distribution of p e nsions once the list of elig i ble beneficiaries w a s sent by the competent comm i ttee, which included the Tehsil d ar, Patwari and D o ctor. It was further the stand of the plaintiff that he had n e ver received any p e cuniary benefit out of the pe n sions and had merely acted in his official capacit y in disbursing pensions. On these averments, he prayed f o r a decree of decla r ation declaring the impugned l e tters as illegal and void, along w ith relief of manda t ory injunction and permanent i n junction restraining the author i ties from making re c overy from him.

¶19

O n notice, defendants No.1 and 2, i.e. the District Social Wel f are Officer and D e puty Commissioner, contested the suit. They raised prelimi n ary objections of m a intainability, want of cause of a ction, suppression of true facts and non-issuance o f notice under Section 80 CPC. On merits, their case was that the plaintiff, while acting as Sarpanch, colluded w ith the proforma defendants and allowed them t o receive pension despite their i n eligibility. It was alleged that S mt. Kamlesh had p e rformed a Kareva/karepa marri a ge with Krishan Lal, brother of her deceased husb a nd, and was, therefore, not e n titled to widow pension, yet she continued to re c eive it with the connivance of the plaintiff/respondent No.1-R i shi Pal. Similarly, i t was alleged that Smt. Shanti ’ s husband had returned alive f r om

¶20

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA-1070-2017 (O&M) - 3 -

¶22

abroad, renderi n g her ineligible for helpless pe n sion, yet she too continued to d r aw the same. It was thus asserted that the plai n tiff was guilty of dishonesty a nd embezzlement o f government revenue, and rec o very had rightly been ordered f r om

¶23

him.

¶24

O n the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the follo w ing

¶25

issues :-

¶26

1. Whether the plaintiff is enti t led to the decree for declaratio n as pr a yed for? OPP

¶27

1. Whether the plaintiff is e n titled to the relief of manda t ory inj u nction with consequential r e lief of permanent injunction as pr a yed? OPP 3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and no locus st a ndi to f ile the present suit? OPP

¶28

Whether the plaintiff has su p pressed the true and material f a cts fro m the Court? OPD

¶29

1. Relief.

¶30

In e vidence, the plaintiff examine d himself as PW1 and reiterated t hat he had merely performed the ministerial du t y of disbursing pensions on the directions of t h e Government, and that the n a mes of proforma defendants w ere included by th e official committee or by the N ambardar of the village. He re l ied upon the fact t hat as early as 2002 the pen s ions had been sanctioned on the identification o f the then Nambardar Mam Cha n d and not on his recommendat i on. He also asserted that since 2006 the pension s of Kamlesh and Shanti had been stopped by the D epartment itself, and therefore fastening recovery on him in 2 0 13 was wholly un w arranted.

¶31

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

RSA-1070-2017 (O&M) - 4 -

¶33

O n the other hand, the defendants e xamined Ashwani Madan, DS W O, as DW1, who p roved the impugned letters. H owever, in his cross-examina t ion DW1 admitted t hat the pensions of Kamlesh a n d Shanti had already been stop p ed in 2006 and that recovery was to be effecte d from the actual recipients of the pensions. The d efendants also examined Kam l esh as DW3 and Shanti as D W 4. Certain affidav i ts purported to be signed by t h em were produced as Mark C and Mark D, but b o th Kamlesh and Shanti denie d having executed those affida v its. DW5 Rajender Tyagi was also examined. The d efence sought to establish that the plaintiff had c o lluded with the proforma def e ndants for illegal disbursemen t of pension.

¶34

Findings of the trial Court

¶35

Upon consideration of the mater i al, the trial Court vide judg m ent dated 12.3.201 5 dismissed the suit. It held tha t the plaintiff, being Sarpanch, w as under duty to d i scharge his functions diligently , but he had failed to do so and w as in knowledge o f the ineligibility of proforma d e fendants. It was concluded that the recovery order e d against him was justified. A ccordingly, the issues relatin g to declaration an d injunction were decided a g ainst the plaintiff, whereas the objections as to cause of action and suppressio n of material facts were not pre s sed and were held i n his favour. Relief was denied a nd the suit was dismissed.

¶36

Findings of the Appellate Court

¶37

Th e plaintiff preferred appeal, w hich was heard by the lear n ed Additional Dis t rict Judge, Panipat. The Appe l late Court examined the evidence afresh. It note d that both Kamlesh and Sh a nti had categorically denied the affidavits prod u ced by the defence. It further n o ticed that DW1, the District Social Welfare Office r , had himself admitted in cross - examination that recovery oug h t to

¶38

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

RSA-1070-2017 (O&M) - 5 -

¶40

be made from t h e persons who had actually dr a wn the pension, and not from any other person. I t was also observed that no sh o w cause notice or opportunit y of hearing had b e en given to the plaintiff befo r e issuing the impugned reco v ery letters, which w as in violation of the principl e s of natural justice. The appellate court emphasiz e d that after 2006 the pensions o f Kamlesh and Shanti had already been stopped a n d, therefore, it was wholly unj u stified to fasten liability upon the plaintiff in 201 3 . It was concluded that there w a s no cogent evidence to prove t hat the plaintiff ha d colluded with proforma defen d ants for any pecuniary benefit. On these findings, the appellate court reversed t h e judgment of the trial court and partly decreed the suit, declaring that the i m pugned letters were illegal and restraining defe n dants No.1 and 2 from effectin g recovery from the plaintiff. 9. Th e present Regular Second Ap p eal has been filed by the S t ate challenging the j udgment and decree dated 04.11.2016 passed by the learned lo w er Appellate Cour t .

¶41

Notice of the present regular sec o nd appeal has been issued to the respondents. U p on notice, only respondent No. 1 chose to contest the appeal. Submissions of behalf of the appellants

¶42

Le a rned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted t hat the lower App e llate Court had gravely erred in setting aside the well-reaso n ed judgment of the trial court. It was urged that th e plaintiff, while acting as Sarpa n ch, had dishonestly disbursed widow pension to S m t. Kamlesh and helpless pensio n to Smt. Shanti de s pite their ineligibility, and th a t such disbursement was don e in collusion with t he said beneficiaries for his o w n pecuniary benefit. It was fur t her contended that t he trial court had correctly he l d the plaintiff guilty of negligence

¶43

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

RSA-1070-2017 (O&M) - 6 -

¶45

and embezzle m ent of government revenue a n d, therefore, recovery was rig h tly ordered against him.

¶46

Le a rned counsel further argued th a t the lower appellate court mis r ead and misconstru e d the statement of DW1 Ashw a ni Madan. The testimony of D W 1, read as a whol e , showed that the plaintiff did n ot discharge his duty honestly and diligently, and i n collusion with the proforma d efendants caused loss to the S t ate Exchequer. Th e findings of the lower appella t e court that recovery ought t o be made from the a ctual recipients and not from t h e plaintiff were alleged to be b a sed upon selective r eading of evidence and conject u res. 13. It w as also contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable fo r want of mandatory notice un d er Section 80 of the Code of C ivil Procedure. The objection had been specifically raised by the State before the t rial court, but the l ower appellate court failed t o appreciate this important aspect. According to l e arned counsel, in the absence o f notice, the decree passed by the appellate court i s wholly unsustainable in law. 14. Le a rned counsel further argued that the appellate court ign o red material evide n ce, particularly the affidavits o f Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Sh a nti, which clearly i n dicated collusion and mala fide conduct on the part of the plain t iff. The approach o f the appellate court, in brushin g aside such material, was descri b ed as perverse and contrary to law. It was also co n tended that the impugned reco v ery orders were is s ued after due inquiry by the competent authority and that the plaintiff’s reme d y lay in responding to the noti c e rather than challenging the or d ers by way of civil suit. It was thus prayed that t h e judgment of the lower appellate court be set asi d e and the judgment of the trial c ourt be restored.

¶47

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

RSA-1070-2017 (O&M)

¶49

- 7 -

¶50

Submissions of behalf of the respondents

¶51

O n the other hand, learned coun s el appearing for respondent N o.1 supported the j u dgment of the lower Appellat e Court and submitted that the t rial Court had mis d irected itself in saddling the p laintiff with liability without any cogent evidenc e . It was pointed out that even t h e Department’s own officer, D W 1 Ashwani Mada n , in his cross-examination h a d admitted that recovery is to be effected from t h e actual recipients of pension a n d not from any other person. Once such an admission was on record, there was no b asis to hold the plaintiff liable. 16. It w as further argued that the affi d avits relied upon by the defend a nts had no evident i ary value since both Smt. Ka m lesh and Smt. Shanti had de n ied execution of th e same in their depositions. The t rial court erred in acting upon s u ch disowned docu m ents, whereas the lower appell a te court rightly discarded them. 17. Le a rned counsel also argued that t h e plaintiff had not played any r ole in recommendi n g the names of proforma defen d ants. The pensions in question h ad been sanctione d way back in the year 2002 o n the identification of the village Nambardar an d in accordance with Govern m ent procedure. The Sarpanch w as merely tasked w ith distribution of pensions on c e the names were finalized by the authorities. Th e re was thus no evidence to prove any collusion or disho n est intention on pa rt of the plaintiff. 18. It w as also pointed out that the p e nsions of Kamlesh and Shanti h ad already been st o pped since 2006, and, therefo r e, the attempt to recover amo u nts from the plaintiff in 2013 was wholly arbitrar y . More importantly, no show c a use notice or oppor t unity of hearing had ever been g iven to the plaintiff before iss u ing the impugned r ecovery letters, which was a c lear violation of the principle s of

¶52

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

RSA-1070-2017 (O&M) - 8 -

¶54

natural justice. For this reason alone, the le a rned lower Appellate Court w as justified in setti n g aside the recovery. 19. Ac c ordingly, learned counsel sub m itted that the findings of the lo w er Appellate Cour t were based on proper appreci a tion of evidence and law, and did not call for inte r ference in second appeal.

¶55

Findings of this Court

¶56

I h a ve heard learned counsel for t h e parties and carefully perused the record.

¶57

Th e material question for consid e ration is “Whether the Appellate Court was justi f ied in setting aside the trial c o urt’s judgment and in holding t hat recovery canno t be effected from the plaintiff ? ” The pleadings and evidence are not in dispute. W hat requires scrutiny is the app r eciation thereof.

¶58

Th e learned trial Court proce e ded primarily on the basis of conjectures that the plaintiff, being Sarpanch, m ust have been in collusion with the proforma defen d ants and was aware of their i n eligibility. However, there wa s no reliable docum e ntary or oral evidence to substa n tiate such a finding. The affida v its produced again s t him were disowned by their a lleged executants. On the contr a ry, the cross-exa m ination of DW1 Ashwani M a dan, the District Social Wel f are Officer, clearly established that the Department itself was of the view that reco v ery was to be made from the actual recipients of pe n sion, namely Kamlesh and Sh a nti. This testimony w as vital and ought to have be e n given due weight. The trial c o urt failed to apprec i ate the significance of this adm i ssion. 23. Fu r ther, the admitted position is that the pensions in question h ad been sanctione d way back in 2002 on the ident i fication of the Nambardar, and not at the instance o f the plaintiff. The procedure f o llowed by the Government ma d e it

¶59

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

RSA-1070-2017 (O&M) - 9 -

¶61

clear that selec t ion of beneficiaries was by a c ommittee consisting of Tehsil d ar, Patwari and Doctor, and later by the Nambard a r, and that the Sarpanch’s role w as limited to distri b ution. Moreover, pensions of b oth Kamlesh and Shanti had been stopped since 2006. If at all any wrongful be n efit was received thereafter, it w as the recipients a lone who could be made liabl e . To hold the plaintiff person a lly liable for reco v ery in 2013, seven years afte r cessation of pensions, is wh o lly unjustified.

¶62

Th e learned lower Appellate Cour t rightly noticed that no show c a use notice or oppor t unity of hearing had been aff o rded to the plaintiff before iss u ing recovery orders. The principles of natural justi c e are foundational to any penal or recovery actio n . In the absence of such oppo r tunity, the impugned letters w ere vitiated.

¶63

Th u s, the findings of the trial co u rt suffer from serious infirmi t ies. They were base d on assumptions and on eviden c e which was either inadmissibl e or denied. In con t rast, the appellate court und e rtook a thorough analysis of the evidence, appr e ciated the admissions made b y DW1, examined the denia l of affidavits by K a mlesh and Shanti, and recorded a balanced finding that the plai n tiff cannot be saddled with recovery. The reason i ng of the appellate court is w ellfounded in law a s well as in fact.

¶64

Conclusion

¶65

In v iew of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion t hat the judgment o f the learned Additional Distr i ct Judge, Panipat, does not suffer from any illega l ity or perversity. The trial cou r t erred in fastening liability on the plaintiff withou t adequate evidence, whereas t h e appellate court’s conclusions are

¶66

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶67

RSA-1070-2017 (O&M) - 10 -

¶68

consistent with the record and the settled principles of law. This Court finds no ground to inter fe re.

¶69

Co n sequently, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judg m ent and decree da t ed 4.11.2016 passed by the l earned Additional District Ju d ge, Panipat, are affirmed.

¶70

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶71

September 01, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE

¶72

W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o .

¶73

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

District Social Welfare Officer Panipat (Sh. R.S. Hooda) & Ors. v. Rishi Pal (Ex. Sarpanch)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

District Social Welfare Officer Panipat (Sh. R.S. Hooda) & Ors. v. Rishi Pal (Ex. Sarpanch)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Charan Vs Manohar Singh

Babli and Ors. Vs Yogesh Saini and Ors.

(O&M) Champa Vs Nitya Nand and Ors.

Rajesh Singh Vs Brij Mohan Dhall and Another

Prem Chand and Ors. Vs Ram Lal and Ors.

Baldev Kaur etc. Vs Gurdev Singh and Ors.