- (1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has arisen in the following circumstances :- The petitioner had been elected as a Panch of the Gram Panchayat, Ahmedpur. One Chanan Singh, had been elected as a Sarpanch. The said Sarpanch was removed by the Director of Panchayats, Punjab. The petitioner was appointed as an acting Sarpanch on 24.10.1966. The order of removal of Chanan Singh, Sarpach was set aside by this Court on a writ petition on 2.2.1969. The petitioner made way as an acting Sarpanch on 27.3.1969 in favour of Chanan Singh. While he acting as a Sarpanch he kept in his custody a sum of Rs. 2735.39 far in excess of the limit prescribed under Rule 23 of the Gram Panchayat Rules. The petitioner was then removed as a member of the Panchayat by the Director of Panchayats, Punjab, vide order dated 13.10.1969, Annexure R-1/A. The Director ordered that action be taken against the petitioner in order to recover the loss occurred to the Panchayat by employing the provisions of Section 105 of the Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Extension Officer who was working as a Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Budhlada on 28.8.1970, issued a notice (Annexure P.1) to the petitioner to explain why action, under section 105 of the Act be not taken against him for the amount illegally retained by him and the interest be recovered from him to the extent the Panchayat had suffered a loss. The petitioner was advised to put in reply for the purpose till 10.9.1970. As averred by the petitioner in this petition, he ignored that notice, since he considered it to be issued by an authority which was not competent to issue such a notice. The said authority again issued notice, Annexure P.2 on 28.10.1970 to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why an amount of Rs. 1185.75 as interest/loss suffered by the Panchayat be not recovered from him. This again was turned by the petitioner a deaf ear. Since, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity afforded to him, the said authority vide order Annexure R-4/A dated 9.12.1970 held the petitioner responsible for the payment of Rs. 2735.39 as the outstanding sum and Rs. 1185.75 as the interest accrued thereon due to the Panchayat. The total figure thus stood at Rs. 3929.14 as outstanding against the petitioner. The said sum was then sought to be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. The Assistant Collector, Second Grade then in the year 1974 issued a demand warrant, Annexure R-5 against the petitioner, but the petitioner did not pay the said sum. Then again the petitioner received a notice in the year 1976, Annexure R-7 asking him to make payment and yet no payment was made. Since, the petitioner was apprehensive that a warrant of arrest could be issued against him, he filed the present petition in this Court.
(2.) Shri R.N. Narula, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised three jurisdiction points to challenge the orders and action of the respondents. These are :- (i) that the authority issuing the notices, Annexures P-1 and P-2 was the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Budhlada and under the law it was only the District Panchayat Officer, who was competent to issue such a notice; (ii) that the said notices were issued beyond the period of one year and thus the entire action was beyond the power of the said authority; and (iii) that the sums in question could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
(3.) With regard to the first point raised, it is to be noticed that section 105 of the Act, as it then stood, authorised a District Panchayat Officer concerned to assess by order in writing, the amount due from a member of a Gram Panchayat on account of loss, waste or misapplication of any money or property belonging to the Gram Panchayat if such loss, waste or misapplication was a consequence of the member's neglect or misconduct while as a member. The precise objection is that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer who purported to have issued the notices, Annexures P-1 and P-2, was not District Panchayat Officer. It need be mentioned here that the designated officer "District Panchayat Officer" had not been defined in the Act. However, the existence of such designated officers is a matter beyond doubt. The State in its return has appended a notification dated 30th October, 1959, Annexure R-8 to show that the Governor of Punjab had been pleased to merge the posts of District Panchayat Officer and Block Development Officers with effect from 1st November, 1959 and had thereby conferred upon the Block Development Officers, the powers, duties and functions in their block areas of District Panchayat Officers. The said notification puts the matter beyond doubt that the Block Development Officers and District Panchayat Officers were the same functionaries. Thus the notices issued by the Block Development Officer, Annexures P.1 and P.2, were issued by the District Panchayat Officer within the meaning of Section 105 of the Act. The contention raised merits dismissal on that score.;