IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3495 of 1988 Date of decision:03.02.2010 Khem Chand ....Petitioner versus The Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development & Panchayat Departments, Chandigarh and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The case is of the year, 1988 and there is no representation for either side at the time when the matter is called. I hasten to proceed with the disposal of the writ petition by examining the records. 2. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana remitting the matter for an enquiry before BDPO for an action for recovery of certain amounts alleged to be due from the petitioner, when he was holding the office of a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Singhwa Khas, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar. The notice appears to have been issued by the BDPO on 13.08.1985 and the challenge was made on the basis that Section 105(3) Civil Writ Petition No.3495 of 1988 - 2 - of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act delimits the period before when any action could be pursued against an ex-officer of the panchayat. While the Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Revisional Authority interfered with the decision only on the ground that the notice of recovery had been made on 13.08.1985 which was within a period of 2 years. 3. The order of the Revisional Authority is assailed on the ground that even as per the order of the Revisional Authority the petitioner demitted his office in July 1983 and an action for recovery could have been made under Section 105(3) only within a period of 2 years which meant it ought to have been before July 1985. The first notice itself was issued only in August 1985 and therefore, the Revisional Authority was not factually correct in stating that the action was being taken within a period of 2 years. The order of the Revisional Authority is clearly wrong and the order is quashed. 4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.02.2010. sanjeev