- (1.) The petitioner was employed as a Gram Sevak in a substantive capacity in the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra While working on the aforesaid post, he was placed under suspension by the older of the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra, dated March 7, 1969. It appears that by a subsequent order dated October 27, 1969, the Finance, Taxation and Administration Standing Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') confirmed the action of the Vikas Adhikari an lacing the petitioner under suspension. On July 3, 1969, the Vikas Adhikari served a charge sheet upon the petitioner wherein after enumerating the charges, he stated that the said charges were found proved against the petitioner and an such, the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in the service of the State Government the petitioner was, therefore, called upon to show cause why proceedings for his removal from service be not taken the petitioner case in that the Vikas Adhikari war prejudiced, against him at the petitioner in his reply filed on July 31, 1969 submitted that on account of the fact that the Vikas Adhikari was biased against him and has already come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against him stood substantiated he did not expect that justice would be done to him by the Vikas Adhikari. It appears that the Vikas Adhikari made an ex parte enquiry against the petitioner and found the charges proved against him in his enquiry report dated January 2, 1970. A show-cause notice was sent by the Vikas Adhikari to the petitioner on January 2, 1970 along with a copy of the enquiry report and he was directed to submit a reply within 15 days as to why he should not be removed from service. On February 6, 1970, the report of the enquiry conducted by the Vikis Adhikari was placed before a meeting of he Committee of the Panchayat Samiti and the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer was approved, subject to confirmation by the District Establishment Committee (hereinafter called the 'District Committee').
(2.) The petitioner raised several grounds in the present writ petition, inter alia, that no final order was passed in respect of the services of the petitioner by the Panchayat Samiti and that the petitioner was not paid any subsistence allowance since the time he was placed under suspension from March 7, 1969. However, with the reply filed by the respondents, a copy of the order of the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra dated November 3, 1970 (Ex. P-1) has been produced by which, the petitioner was removed from the post of Gram Sevak with effect from March 7, 1969 and it has been stated therein that the District Committee Sriganganagar, in its meeting held on September 19, 1970, had confirmed the order of the Committee imposing the punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner.
(3.) The first contention by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner since March 7, 1969,the date he was placed under suspension by the order of the Vikas Adhikari (Ex. 1). This fact is not denied by the respondents in their reply but it has been averred by them that the subsistence allowance could not be paid to the petitioner due to his own delaying tactics. It has not been brought on record by the respondents that at any time an offer was made on their behalf in respect of the payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner and the petitioner refused to accept or delayed the payment thereof. Thus, there is no doubt that the grievance of the petitioner on this score is well founded and no subsistence allowance was paid to him ever since he was placed under suspension with effect from March 7, 1969, nor any offer regarding the payment of the subsistence allowance appears to have been made to the petitioner at any time during this period by or on behalf of the respondents.;