RATI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON June 9, 1998, the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa directed the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sirsa to recover an amount of Rs. 5,67,881/ - from the Petitioner. This recovery was ordered to be made for the loss caused by the Petitioner while he was working as Sarpanch. In fact, it was alleged that he had embezzled this amount. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Director, Development and Panchayats. Vide order dated July 16, 1998 (a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P5 with the writ petition), the Director observed that the powers to hear appeal had been delegated to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 53(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Thus, the appeal was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for disposal. On June 9, 1999, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal in default, as the Petitioner was not present. The Petitioner challenges this order on the ground that initially the order for recovery having been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the appeal should not have been forwarded to him. It has been further stated before us that even the application for restoration of appeal has been dismissed on April 26, 2000. The Petitioner prays that the order dated June 9, 1999, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P2 with the petition) be quashed and that the matter be remitted to the Director for decision on merits.

(2.) THE claim made on behalf of the Petitioner has been contested by the counsel for the Respondents.

(3.) MS . Palika Monga appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr. J.B. Tacoria appearing for Respondent No. 6 have controverted this.