Civil Writ Petition No. 9759 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 9759 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.8.2010 Buta Singh …Petitioner Versus Secretary to Government of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Tiwana, Advocate for respondent No.4. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that the order dated 10.6.2009 (Annexure P6), which resulted into passing of a detailed order dated 10.6.2009 (Annexure P9), be quashed as no recovery could be effected from the petitioner-Sarpanch after a period of two years of demitting his office, in view of Section 216 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act,194 (hereinafter referred to as “1994 Act”). Before this submission is considered, it will be necessary to take notice of the brief facts of the case. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of village Chachowal in the year 1998. His term came to an end in the month of Civil Writ Petition No. 9759 of 2009 2 June 2003. Thereafter, Charan Dass, complainant, was elected as a Sarpanch. On the complaint, filed by Charan Dass, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Jalandhar (East), came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.2,40,128/- are to be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue under Section 216(2) of the 1994 Act. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Jalandhar, vide his order dated 5.1.2008 (Annexure P5). The petitioner assailed the order of recovery in revision. Before the Revisional Authority, a specific plea was taken that no recovery could be effected from the petitioner under Section 216(4) of the 1994 Act. Section 216(4) of the 1994 Act reads as under:- “216. Liability of members of Panchayat. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section no person shall be called upon to explain why he should not be required to make good any loss, after the expiry of four years from the occurrence of the loss, waste or misapplication or after the expiry of two years from his ceasing to be a member, whichever is later”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the first time, the petitioner received a notice on 28.2.2008 and earlier thereto neither he was associated with any enquiry nor was called upon to pay the amount sought to be recovered. He further submits that this aspect has neither been dealt with by the Appellate Authority nor by the Revisional Authority. Civil Writ Petition No. 9759 of 2009 3 A perusal of impugned order (Annexure P9) reveals that the contention of Law Officer was noticed that on 30.6.2004, the enquiry was entrusted to the Deputy Chief Executive, Zilla Parishad, Jalandhar and on 8.7.2007, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalandhar, held that the amount of Rs.2,40,128/- are liable to be recovered from the petitioner. A plea of the department was further noticed that in view of provisions of Section 216(5) of the 1994 Act, the amount can be recovered from the petitioner as the enquiry was initiated against him within time. A bare reading of Sections 216(4) and (5) of the 1994 Act makes it explicit clear that before any recovery is to be effected, the erring official of the Panchayat is to be associated with the enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before 28.2.2008, neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor was he associated with the enquiry. These factual aspects are required to be examined by the Revisional Authority after considering the evidence available on the file. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that chronological events have not been taken into consideration by the Revisional Authority. Thus, this matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authority to examine the entire matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Revisional Authority shall also determine as to on which date, a notice was issued to the petitioner for effecting recovery or earlier thereto when he was associated with the enquiry or when it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the amount is to be recovered from him, so that true interpretation of Section 216(4) and Civil Writ Petition No. 9759 of 2009 4 (5) of the 1994 Act on the facts of the case, is rendered by the said Authority. Consequently, impugned order (Annexure P9) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Revisional Authority to decide the matter afresh. The parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 7.9.2010. In view of the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 3, 2010 “DK”