IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 695 of 2007 Date of decision: 17.6.2009 RamJi Dass … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh Vashistha, vice Mr. R.S.Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the vires of Section 122 (1) (f) of the H.P.Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which reads as follows:- “122. Disqualifications:- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen, as and for being, an office bearer, of a Panchayat- xxx… xxx… xxx… (f) if he has been removed from public service or disqualified in public service.” The petitioner was working as constable in the Special Security Bureau (SSB). He was removed from service after an inquiry was held vide order dated 20th October, 1981. The 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 petitioner had challenged his removal from service by filing writ petition in this Court which writ petition was dismissed. Review petition, which was filed, was also rejected. The petitioner contested elections for the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Samoh, Tehsil Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur. He was duly elected. His election was challenged by respondent No.4 by filing an election petition No. 13 of 2006. One of the main grounds of challenge was that the petitioner having been removed from service was disqualified from contesting the elections. This election petition was rejected by the authorised officer i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin, on 26.8.2006. The respondent No. 4 thereafter filed an appeal and this appeal was allowed by the respondent No.2 on 20.1.2007 and the election of the petitioner was quashed and set-aside on the ground that he was not entitled to contest the elections due to the bar contained in Section 122(1)(f). Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order of the respondent No.2 by filing CWP No. 137 of 2007 before this Court. This writ petition was withdrawn on 15.3.2007 with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. Before us mainly two grounds have been raised. The main ground urged is that the provisions of Section 122(1)(f) are illegal and unconstitutional and liable to be quashed and secondly that the election petition had not been verified in accordance with the provisions of Section 164 of the H.P.Panchayati Raj Act. As far as the first contention is raised, Shri Adarsh Vashistha, learned vice counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on Rule 3 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which inter-alia lay-down that a person who has been removed from service shall not be debarred from future employment under the State. It is urged that the Union of India in its wisdom has differentiated between removal and dismissal from service. Whereas an employee dismissed from service is not entitled to get any re-employment under the State, there is no such bar in case of a person who has been removed from service. He submits that applying the same analogy, the petitioner could not have been debarred from contesting the elections and the provision of Section 122 (1)(f) which lays down such a bar is unconstitutional. We are unable to accept this contention. In service jurisprudence, the employer may lay down certain conditions. The rules framed by the Central Government i.e. CCS (CCA) Rules apply only in respect of disciplinary proceedings against an employee and have no connection with the elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions. It is the State, which is empowered to lay-down the qualifications/dis-qualifications for elections to the Panchayats. The State legislature in its wisdom has decided to debar persons who have been removed from service from contesting any elections. Such a bar cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Both removal from service as well as dismissal from service are major penalties. True it is, that dismissal from service is a graver penalty than removal but this does not mean that while laying down the disqualifications the State legislature could not club two or more similar disqualifications together. In fact, as the act originally 4 stood, only persons who had been dismissed from service were disqualified. By an amendment brought out in the year 2002 the employees who had been removed from service were also disqualified from contesting elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions. The legislature in its wisdom decided that employees who had been found guilty of serious misconduct, which culminated in their losing their jobs should be clubbed together and should be disqualified from contesting the elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions. As already observed above, it is only the State which has the power to make the laws and a law has been enacted by the State. The rules framed by the Union cannot over-rule the statutory legislation passed by the competent legislation. Though we find no dichotomy between the Act and the Rules because they both operate in different spheres, even if there is any inconsistency the Act must prevail over the Rules. The provision debarring the persons removed and dismissed from service from contesting the elections is a valid provision. The two categories form a separate identifiable group. The classification is genuine and has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Panchayati Raj Institutions have been given very wide powers. When any institution is conferred with large discretion and wide powers, it is expected that the men manning such institutions are beyond reproach and are of unimpeachable integrity and of good character. Any person, who has been found guilty of a serious misconduct resulting in his removal from service cannot fall under this category. Therefore, 5 we find that there is no merit in this contention raised by the petitioner. It was lastly contented by Shri Adarsh Vashistha, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petition filed by the respondent No.4 had not been properly verified in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act. We find that no such plea was raised before the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise this argument at this stage. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly rejected. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 17th June, 2009 (Surinder Singh), J. ™