Civil Writ Petition No. 14960 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 14960 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.8.2010 Karamvir …Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The term of respondent No.4-Sarpanch is already over. A new Sarpanch has taken over the office. It has been rightly observed by respondent No.1 that minor allegations were levelled against respondent No.4, outgoing Sarpanch. Respondent No.1, in the order dated 11.5.2010, has returned the following findings: “...I have heard the counsels at length and have gone through the record. Allegation No.1 is with regard to embezzlement of Rs.2250/- by showing payment to a labourer whose signatures and thumb impression was not available on the muster roll. The appellant has alleged that there are signatures/thumb impressions of all the eleven Civil Writ Petition No. 14960 of 2010 2 labourers and moreover, the payment in respect of this muster roll has not been made from the Panchayat fund. The Deputy Commissioner has not refuted this reply of the appellant. With regard to the second allegation, the appellant could get the criminal action taken against Shri Ram Kumar but the appellant imposed a fine of Rs.300/- upon him. The said charge is not a sufficient ground for removal of an elected representative. The regular enquiry report does reveal that the pond was dug in the reserved land for school and further there is unrebuttable evidence on record to prove that the JCB machine was used for digging of pond. The allegations at Sr. No. 4, 5, 6 and 9 are regarding irregularities and not regarding misappropriation of Panchayat fund, therefore, a lenient view can be taken in respect of these allegations. Though the expenditure of Rs.7670/- on the occasions of the independence day is not a fit charge on the Panchayat fund, it is an irregularity committed which can be rectified by recovering the excess amount from the appellant. The last allegation with regard to the payment of Rs.50,000/- on account of demarcation of Panchayat land seems to be a serious one but this amount has also not been alleged to be embezzled by the appellant. Civil Writ Petition No. 14960 of 2010 3 Undoubtedly, it can be said that the appellant has misappropriated the Panchayat fund but to protect the Panchayat property”. The allegations against respondent No.4 have been enumerated in para No.3 of the writ petition. I have perused those allegations. The allegations are not such that respondent No.4 should be disqualified from holding the office of a Panch, in future. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 11.5.2010 (Annexure P2), passed by respondent no.1, especially when it has been noticed therein that the term of respondent No.4 as a Sarpanch has already expired on 30.4.2010. Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 23, 2010 “DK”