IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12847 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 02, 2009 Bhim Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Development & Panchayat, Haryana and & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate, for Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) It seems that the petitioner is complainant against respondent No.5, Ram Chander, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dariyapur, Tehsil & District Jhajjar. Challenge has been made to Order dated 8.5.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Development & Panchayat, Haryana. The order has been passed in appeal under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati CWP No.12847 of 2007 [2] Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’). It seems that the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar, vide Order dated 7.3.2007 (Annexure P-2) while exercising powers under Section 53(2) of the Act held respondent No.5 guilty for causing loss to the Gram Panchayat to the tune of Rs.66,690/-. Respondent No.5 was also placed under suspension till the time of deposit of the amount in Panchayat fund. Respondent No.5, Ram Chander, challenged the order in appeal whereupon while adjudicating, the following has been observed:- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record carefully, I am of the view that the Sarpanch has been suspended for not depositing an amount of Rs.66,690/- for laying down of a parallel water pipeline. The orders of recovery passed by BDPO on 25.1.2006 as well as the appeal against these order dated 25.7.2006 are not speaking in nature. Further, under overall circumstances of the case, ordering personal recovery from the Sarpanch is not justified. The justification provided by the Sarpanch for laying down parallel pipelines seems to be reasonable and does not amount to embezzlement or misappropriation and is in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. The elected representatives have full functional freedom to take decision in this regard and administrative authorities should not order recovery in such matters. Ordering the recovery for such an action and that too without giving reasons for rejecting the clarification is arbitrary in nature. Further, placing under suspension for not depositing this amount cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Announced.” Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Secretary was only adjudicating the issue of suspension. However, while dealing with the issue of suspension, even the order in regard to recovery of Rs.66,690/- has been set aside. This was therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Secretary in the proceedings that were pending CWP No.12847 of 2007 [3] before him which were only in the context of order of suspension. I have considered the issue. Prima facie, it is evident from the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner that respondent No.5 i.e. the Sarpanch, was suspended from his post till the time the amount noticed above was deposited in Panchayat fund. The order of suspension was therefore directly related, by the Deputy Commissioner, to the recovery of the amount. It becomes evident that without adjudicating in regard to the amount itself, order of suspension could not have been dealt with. Having considered the reasons assigned by the Financial Commissioner, I find that there is no reason for Writ Court to interfere in the matter. I find no illegality in decision making process. It is a well reasoned order. The Financial Commissioner is highest in the hierarchy under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. He having considered the justification of the action of the respondent and having held it to be a reasoned one, no reason for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 02, 2009 JUDGE avin