IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.232 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.6.2010 ________________________________________________________ Tilak Raj ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? For the petitioner: Ms.Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Adarsh Vashista, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr.S.D.Vasudeva, Advocate for respondent No.6. _____________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J.(Oral) Petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure P/8) passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Bhattiyat at Chowari, whereby his appointment as Assistant Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Sudli has been held to be bad and it has further been held that respondent No.5, Surinder Singh 2 had been recommended to be appointed by the Panchayat by its resolution dated 12.12.1999. Respondent No.5 was appointed as Assistant Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Sudli long back in the year 1999 pursuant to resolution, copy Annexure, P/1, passed by the Panchayat. His appointment was challenged by the present petitioner by filing a complaint before the SDO, (Civil), Bhattiyat who after enquiry held that appointment of respondent No.5, Surinder Singh was bad and consequently quashed it. Surinder Singh, respondent No.5 then filed an Original Application before the then State Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of Sub Divisional Collector. That Original Application was allowed and respondent No.5 was reinstated. The order of State Administrative Tribunal was challenged by filing a writ petition in this Court. This Court vide order, Annexure P/7 held that fresh inquiry was required to be conducted into the matter. Writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Sub Divisional Collector for deciding the same afresh. 3 Assistant Collector has now passed the impugned order, Annexure P/8. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order. According to him, though there was a resolution dated 12.12.1999 appointing respondent No.5, that resolution was not passed by majority and so, the same was cancelled and a fresh resolution was passed in the meeting held on 28.12.1999 recommending the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Secretary. This Court ordered the production of the original register of the Panchayat containing the resolutions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and seen the register. It may be stated at the very outset that the register has been tampered with. In addition to the holes through which the binding thread passes, there are four other sets of holes which clearly indicate that the register was unbound and then fresh binding was done. Not only this, there are at least two sheets in the register, which have been inserted by removing the original sheets, and it is these two removed sheets which were supposed to contain the resolution regarding the appointment of Assistant Secretary, Panchayat. These two inserted sheets 4 are between page Nos.54 and 57. Sheets are paginated in such a fashion that each side is assigned one page. After the sheet bearing page Nos.53 and 54, there are two sheets the portions of which at the corners where page number was supposed to be printed are torn. The sheet next to these two inserted sheets does not bear machine printed page on the front side, but on the other side, it bears page No.58 that means on the front side, this sheet was supposed to bear page No.57. Now the two inserted sheets do not bear any page number and the portion on which the page number was supposed to be printed has been torn off. These two sheets, if genuine, were supposed to bear page Nos.55 and 56 (first sheet) and 57 and 58 (the second sheet) but as already noticed, there is a genuine sheet next to them which bears page No.58 on the second side. The above stated position clearly indicates that one sheet bearing page No.55 and 56 has been removed from the register and in its place, two sheets have been inserted. 5 The matter being very serious, because public record has been tampered with by an elected body, performing both administrative and quasi judicial functions, it is directed that Registry shall address a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba for looking into the matter and to register a case, in case it is found that offence punishable under law has been committed. S.P, Chamba shall submit a detailed report, after enquiry, within two months of receipt of reference from this Registry. I do not find resolution dated 12.12.1999, copy whereof is Ext.P/1 in the register, but the fact remains that the petitioner himself has placed on record, Annexure P/1, copy of the resolution dated 12.12.1999 by which respondent No.5 was recommended to be appointed. Her plea is that this resolution had not been passed by majority and so it was superseded by resolution dated 28.12.1999. As per Annexure P/1, copy of the resolution dated 12.12.1999, it was unanimously resolved that Surinder Singh, respondent No.5 was recommended to be appointed as Assistant Secretary. The fact gives a lie to 6 petitioner’s plea that the resolution was not passed by majority and it was only the Pradhan of the Panchayat who was in favour of the appointment of respondent No.5. Resolution dated 28.12.1999 upon which the petitioner relies is no doubt there in the register which has been produced pursuant to this court order dated 24.5.2010, but the same appears on one of the two sheets, demonstrated hereinabove to have been inserted in the register stealthily. The register of resolutions produced from the Panchayat be retained and sent to the S.P, Chamba alongwith the complaint, directed to be made hereinabove, in a sealed cover. A copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the S.P., Chamba. In view of the above stated position, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. June 28, 2010 ( Surjit Singh ) (m) Judge