- (1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has arisen in the following circumstances. On the 4th of July, 1970, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (respondent No. 1) made an order (Annexure 'A' to the petition) directing a regular enquiry against the petitioner who is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Sulkha on the charge given below : "That he did not produce the Panchayat record in compliance with the order issued by my office vide Memo No. 6424-Development, dated 3.6.1970, which is a flagrant disobedience of the said order. Thus it proves the doubt that certain irregularities were committed while leasing out the shamlat land and for this reason he failed to produce the Panchayat record." and also directing the suspension of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner filed a writ petition (Civil Writ No. 2174 of 1970) against the said order but the same was dismissed in limine on the 15th of July, 1970. The Sub-Divisional officer, Rewari conducted the enquiry as directed by respondent No. 1 to whom he submitted his report on a consideration of which respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order on the 5th of January, 1971 (Annexure 'B' to the petition). A portion of that order may be set out here with advantage : "Whereas, after careful examination of the enquiry report of the charges against Shri Sultan Singh (under suspension), Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Sulkha submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rewari, it has become necessary to afford him an opportunity for his defence in accordance with law and this can only be possible if the entire matter is again gone into through another enquiry. Therefore, I, V.S. Ailawadi, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon order an enquiry against Shri Sultan Singh, Sarpanch (under suspension) Gram Panchayat, Sulkha under the provisions of Section 102(2) of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 and appoint the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rewari as the Enquiry Officer. The charges given below are framed against him and he is directed to submit his explanation to the Enquiry Officer within 15 days of the receipt of this order, failing which the Enquiry Officer will immediately proceed with the enquiry ex parte. x x x x. This order detailed seven charges and directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to hold another enquiry against the petitioner. It was attacked in the petition on various grounds, only the following two of which have been urged before me by Shri Surinder Sarup : (1) The Act makes no provision for a second enquiry into charges which have been the subject-matter of a previous enquiry. (2) The impugned order amounts to a review of the order of respondent No. 1 contained in Annexure 'A' to the petition. There is no merit in either of the grounds. The enquiry directed by the impugned order is in substance and reality a continuation of the enquiry already conducted in pursuance of the order contained in Annexure 'A' and is intended to afford a further and better opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his defence, if any. The earlier enquiry had in very nature of things to be a fishing enquiry held in pursuance of a rather vague charge inasmuch as the record of the Panchayat had been withheld by the petitioner illegally and respondent No. 1 could not then be aware of what irregularities he (the petitioner) had committed. It was during the course of that enquiry that the records came to be scrutinised by respondent No. 2 who was only then able to find out precisely what acts of malfeasance and misfeasance the petitioner had been guilty of. Respondent No. 1 has been only fair in splitting up the original vague charge into seven specific allegations of misconduct on the part of the petitioner and in giving him an opportunity over again of meeting them. The two enquiries are merely parts of a continuous process and the second enquiry cannot be regarded as one into charges which have already been legally and finally gone into. In this connection I may also state that I called upon learned counsel for the petitioner to make a categorical statement about the petitioner having been afforded a full and fair opportunity to meet the charge in the earlier enquiry but he expressed his inability to do so, which means that on the one hand the petitioner is reserving to himself the right to challenge the first enquiry on the basis of vagueness and the failure of respondent No. 1 to afford him a full opportunity to meet the case against him and that on the other hand he is challenging the second enquiry which is calculated to give him such an opportunity. He cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold like this and defeat the provisions of the statute by having recourse to subterfuge.
(2.) For the reasons stated I find no substance in the petition which is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 50/-. Petition dismissed.;