UMRAO SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-1983-5-91
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 06,1983

UMRAO SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Haryana and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S. Kang, J. - (1.) Umrao Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of writ of Certiorari quashing orders dated 23rd May 1973, (P -3) and 17th December, 1973 (P -4) passed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Khol at Rewari, and order dated 11th September 1974, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Umrao Singh petitioner had been elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Pithra was in the Year 1964. On the expiry of his term he relinquished charge of this office in December 1971.
(3.) The petitioner received a show -cause notice under Sec. 105(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (for short the Act). From the Block Development & Panchayat Officer Khol at Rewari (respondent No. 2). The petitioner submitted his reply to this show -cause notice on 3rd March, 1973, controverting, the allegation made in the show -cause notice. Respondent No. 2 did not examine any evidence in the presence of the petitioner. He did rot even confront the Petitioner with any material collected against him, Relying upon an exparte report received from the Overseer of the Khol Block, he held that the petitioner had caused loss to the Gram Panchayat to the' tune of Rs. 3565/ -. The petitioner were served with a fresh show -cause notice by respondent No. 2 which contained the same very items as had been included is the previous notice. It was alleged that the petitioner had caused a loss of Rs. 10,515/ -. The petitioner sent representation against this notice to the Director of Panchayat. He specifically prayed that the enquiry in the matter should be conducted by some other officer. Thereafter, the petitioner did not hear anything. He was not associated with any enquiry. No material adverse to the petitioner had been brought to his notice by respondent No. 2. In fact, the petitioner was never called by respondent No. 2 nor he was asked to appear on any particular date. Assessment proceedings were taken by the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, who determined the loss alleged to have been caused by him. The petitioner received an order from respondent No. 2, exercising powers of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, requiring the petitioner to appear before him on 21st September, 1974, alongwith the sum due against him as a defaulter. Aggrieved by these orders and the proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.