- (1.) An enquiry was held against the petitioner-Sarpanch under the provisions of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 , as applicable to Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the following charges :- (1) After his re-appointment as Sarpanch, he has not called the meeting of the Gram Panchayat Bapura in accordance with the rules. (2) After his re-appointment as Sarpanch, he has not made the income and expenditure of Panchayat understood to the people by calling a meeting of the Gram Sabha. (3) He gave the Shamlat land of Gram Panchayat for the construction of the water works and received about Rs. 1,50,000/- as its compensation but so far its accounts have not been made understood to the residents of the village. (4) the substantial grant was given by the Government, but it is not known that at which place or when the Sarpanch has spent the same. (5) About Rs. 45,000/- have been received from the residents of the village as house tax but it has not been spent in accordance with the rules. (6) Sarpanch has shown as newly constructed as old well known as Bhup Singhwala and has shown as expenditure of Rs. 20,000/- on that and thereby mis-appropriated the Panchayat Funds. (7) An income of Rs. 40,000/- from the sewerage from the Shamlat land of the Gram Panchayat is being mis-used by him. (8) An income of about Rs. 6,000/- received by detaining the stray cattle in Phatak has been mis-used through the Sarpanch. The Enquiry Officer, after taking the necessary proceedings came to the conclusion that but for charge Nos. 1, 2 and 7, the rest were not proved against the petitioner. On the basis of this report, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, to the effect that as to why the petitioner should not be removed from the office of the Sarpanch of village Bapura under Section 102(2)(e) of the Act. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice in the form on Annexure P.5 and also put in appearance before the Deputy Commissioner on June 23, 1979. After considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and hearing the petitioner in person, the Deputy Commissioner has observed in his impugned order with regard to these charges as under :- "Regarding charge No. 1, the Enquiry Officer has stated that the meeting of the Panchayat has not been called in accordance with the prescribed rules. On reading the report, it appears that before calling the meeting, no date fixed was communicated to the members and Sarpanch called the meeting at any time on his will. In the meetings the attendance of the Panches was good but this does not suppress the irregularity shown by the Sarpanch. Regarding charge No. 2, it is proved from the enquiry report that Sarpanch has not called the meeting of Gram Sabha in accordance with the prescribed rules. To call the meeting of Gram Sabha, the responsibility also lies with the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti Bhiwani (Block Development and Panchayat Officer Bhiwani). Therefore it will not be proper to hold Sarpanch guilty alone for this". While discussing the merits of charge No. 7 he found from the Panchayat record that one Manphul had been leased out the use of sullage water (Ganda Nala) for the year 1976-77, for Rs. 6,025/-. According to the terms of this lease, 75% of the amount was to be paid upto December 15, 1976 and the balance was to be paid upto May 15, 1977, to the Panchayat. After looking at the Panchayat register, the Deputy Commissioner found it as a fact that out of this lease money, Rs. 4,005/- had been deposited in the account of the Panchayat. With regard to the balance amount, that is, Rs. 2,025/- the Panchayat vide its resolution No. 6 dated April 10, 1977, resolved that notice be given to the lessee for the deposit of this amount within 15 days. Through this resolution it was also resolved that Rs. 2,600/- due from Hakam Ram out of the lease money for the year 1975-76, should also be asked for and said lessee too be served with a notice to deposit the said amount within 15 days. According to the Deputy Commissioner, no follow up action was taken by the Sarpanch after the passing of this resolution and no notices to these lessees were issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this observation of the Deputy Commissioner is contrary to the record of the Panchayat. He submits that subsequent to the passing of the resolution, a notice, Annexure P.13, was issued to Manphul for the payment of Rs. 2,025/-. Anyhow the stand of the learned counsel is that in view of clause (b) of Section 16 of the Act, it is the duty of the Gram Sachiv to carry out the resolution of the Gram Panchayat and he cannot possibly be held responsible for the non-issuance of the notices in terms of the resolution. Further the learned counsel points out that tasking the case of the other side to the maximum, the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner is that the petitioner, Ram Kumar Sarpanch, is incapable of doing the work of the Panchayat whereas the requirement of law is that a Sarpanch can only be removed under Section 102(2)(e) of the Act if his continuance in office, in the opinion of Government or its delegatee competent to remove, is undesirable in the interest of public. No such finding has been recorded by the Deputy Commissioner. Incapability or inefficiency does not necessarily mean undesirability. In the absence of a categoric finding in terms of clause (e) , the order of the Deputy Commissioner, to my mind is contrary to the provisions of the statute and cannot be sustained.
(2.) In view of the discussion above, I quash the impugned order, Annexure P.7, removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. This, however, would not debar the authorities from taking any fresh action on the basis of the material available against him in accordance with law. I pass no order as to costs. Petition accepted.;