- (1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which seeks the issuance of a writ quashing the order dated the 4th of July, 1970, of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal (Annexure "H" to the petition) removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Gohlia Khurd in Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal, are these. Through a letter dated the 22nd September, 1969 (Annexure "A" to the petition), the Deputy Commissioner levelled the following three charges against the petitioner : (a) 35000 bricks were found short at the spot out of those purchased for paving the village lanes as per entries in the cash-book maintained by the petitioner. (b) The petitioner retained with him an amount in excess of Rs. 50/- (from the Panchayat funds) in contravention of the rules governing him. (c) After receiving a sum of Rs. 1200/- from the concerned lessees, the petitioner retained the same with himself for a period of six months and misused it. The District Development & Panchayat Officer (respondent No. 2) was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner as the officer entrusted with the enquiry into the said charges and after hearing the petitioner he (respondent No. 2) submitted his report dated the 18th April, 1970, to the Deputy Commissioner. In that report the findings arrived at in respect of the above charges were these : Charge (a) - In respect of the bricks purchased for paving the village streets, there was a shortfall of 13000 bricks (the number is stated to be 13400 in another part of the report). Apart from that, a shortfall of 23000 bricks out of those purchased for constructing latrines and a school building was also proved. The total short-fall amounted to 36400 bricks. The charge, therefore, stands proved. Charge (b) - The explanation put forth by the petitioner was that it was necessary for him to keep with himself an amount exceeding Rs. 50/- from the Panchayat funds in order to defray labour charges, etc. in connection with the building work undertaken by him on behalf of the Panchayat. The explanation is not plausible and the charge stands proved. Charge (c) - The allegation that the petitioner had retained the lease money with himself was not substantiated but he has been guilty of contravention of Government instructions inasmuch as he did not take steps to realise 3/4th of the lease money for a period of two years and to that extent he is responsible. A copy of the report was made available to the petitioner along with a notice dated the 11th of May, 1970, issued by the Deputy Commissioner and calling upon him to show cause within 15 days of the receipt thereof why he should not be removed from the office of Sarpanch under Section 102(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act. On the 30th of May, 1970, the petitioner submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner asking for extension of time granted to him for the submission of his explanation up to the 7th of June, 1970, and also praying that he be allowed to inspect the record. On the 3rd of June, 1970, he made another application and requested for extension of the said period up to 20th of June, 1970, praying also for permission to inspect the record. A reply was sent to him by post and the same was to the effect that he could inspect the record in the office and that he should submit his reply up to the 4th of July, 1970. On the date last mentioned the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and asked for time on the ground that he could not inspect the record earlier. His request for further extension of time was turned down and on the same day the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order which, after stating the above facts, proceeds thus : "Shri Sadhu Ram Sarpanch has utterly failed in refuting the charges found proved against him by the Enquiry Officer in his report, copy of which was sent to him along with the notice on 11th May, 1970 after the enquiry. Under these circumstances. I do not find any reason why I should not agree with the enquiry report, nor has Sadhu Ram been able to tell me any ground from which it could be found that the discrepancies mentioned in the charge-sheet were beyond his control or that he did so under compulsion. On the basis of above facts, I remove Shri Sadhu Ram from the office of Sarpanch, Gohlia Khurd under Section 102(2) of the Gram Panchayat Act.
(2.) The impugned order must be quashed inasmuch as it is not a "speaking order" and appears to have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner without giving any real consideration to the charges levelled against the petitioner and the findings arrived at thereon by the Enquiry Officer. In so far as charges (a) and (c) are concerned, those findings cover matters which the Enquiry Officer was not at all called upon to investigate. The shortfall of 35000 bricks out of those purchased for the pavement of lanes had nothing to do with any bricks which the petitioner might have purchased for construction of latrines and the school building nor was he ever called upon to submit his explanation to any charge in relation to such construction. Similarly, his failure to recover any lease money was never the subject-matter of any charge and the finding of the Enquiry Officer on charge (c) was, therefore, wholly unwarranted. As it is, the Deputy Commissioner took the entire report of the Enquiry Officer into consideration while passing the impugned order and this is a course which he had no jurisdiction to adopt. It was his duty to confine the consideration of the material available against the petitioner only to the charges which had been levelled against him and which had been made the subject-matter of the notice dated the 22nd of September, 1969. It appears that while acting on the report the Deputy Commissioner did not look into it and passed a mechanical order accepting it in toto. Had he perused it, he would have at once seen that it went beyond the scope of the charges and would not have taken into consideration that part of it which was not germane to the enquiry entrusted to respondent No. 3. It is true that charge (b) stood proved in its entirety but it cannot be assumed that the Deputy Commissioner would have ordered the removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch if he had taken into consideration only the finding of the Enquiry Officer with regard to that charge as the basis for the impugned order. Apparently the charge does not contain allegations of a very serious nature and, for aught one knows, the Deputy Commissioner may not have considered removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch as the deserved punishment in relation to that charge alone. In this view of the matter, the impugned order stands vitiated as a whole.
(3.) Another reason why the impugned order must be quashed is that no proper opportunity appears to have been given to the petitioner to inspect the Panchayat record which furnished the most vital evidence in support of the findings arrived at by respondent No. 3 and was taken for granted by the Deputy Commissioner. According to the petitioner, he filed an application dated the 6th of March, 1970 (Annexure "C" to the petition) before respondent No. 3 requesting that the relevant record be sent for from the office of the Block Development Officer, Panipat, and asking for permission to inspect the same on arrival. The record of proceedings held by respondent No. 3 has been gone through by me but that application is not traceable thereon. As it is, there is no doubt that the petitioner made two applications (dated the 30th of May, 1970, and the 3rd of June, 1970) to the Deputy Commissioner for inspection of the record. It is true that the Deputy Commissioner informed him that he could inspect the record in the office but the grouse of the petitioner is that the communications despatched to him by the Deputy Commissioner in this behalf reached him no earlier than the 4th of July, 1970, which appears to be correct. This means that no real opportunity was given to the petitioner to inspect the record and, therefore, to defend himself.;