IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND CHARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.4883 of 2006 Date of decision: 28.8.2008 Gram Panchayat, Shahpur ......Petitioner(s) Versus Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt Haryana Development and Panchayat Department and Others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mz. Kirti Singh, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.4. JASWANT SINGH,J Petitioner-Gram Panchayat, Shahpur Block Bawal, District Rewari (hereinafter to be referred as “Gram Panchayat”) has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 16.1.2006 (Annexure P.4) passed by the Revisional Authority-respondent No.1 whereby the order dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari-respondent No.2 confirming the orders dated 20.6.2000 and 13.9.2000 (Annexures P.1 & P.2) passed by the B.D.P.O, Bawal, imposing a recovery of Rs.62633.25/- upon Rattan Lal, Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat (respondent No.4) under Section 53(5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “1994 Act”), has been set aside. Briefly, facts of the case are that Rattan Lal-respondent No.4 remained as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat during the term ending August, 1995. A complaint was made in June, 1996 by some villager against respondent No.4 for misappropriation of panchayat funds during his C.W.P.No.4883 of 2006 #2# tenure as Sarpanch. The inquiry was conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rewari, who found that respondent No.4 had mis- appropriated panchayat funds to the tune of Rs.62633.25/- on account of fictitious work having been carried out in the village for the cleanliness and repair of the lanes/roads as also construction of a nala from “Nehar” to the village Johar. Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bawal issued a notice dated 20.6.2002 (Annexure P.1) under Section 53 (2) of 1994 Act to respondent No.4 for recovery of the loss of the aforesaid amount. Thereafter, in continuation of the earlier notice dated 20.6.2002, another notice dated 13.9.2000 (Annexure P.2) was issued. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal under Section 53(5) of 1994 Act against the two notices dated 20.6.2000 and 13.9.2000 before the Appellate Authority-Deputy Commissioner, Rewari (respondent No.2) on the ground that the B.D.P.O had issued notices for the recoveries beyond the period of two years from his ceasing to be Sarpanch, therefore, the initiation of recovery proceedings are time barred. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure P.3) by holding that the proceedings had been initiated within two years of his ceasing to be a Sarpanch, as prescribed under Section 53(5) of 1994 Act. Aggrieved against the said order, respondent No.4 filed a revision petition under Section 53(4) of 1994 Act before respondent No.1. The Revisional Authority vide impugned order dated 16.1.2006 (Annexure P.4) set aside the order dated 27.11.2002 of the Appellate Authority and held that the proceedings under Section 53(5) of 1994 Act had been initiated against Rattan Lal Sarpanch-respondent No.5 beyond the prescribed period of two years. Hence the present petition by the Gram Panchayat. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The sole question to be determined by us is whether the action against respondent No.4-Sarpanch for initiating recovery proceedings to recover Rs.62633.25/- as loss having been caused to the Gram Panchayat is within the prescribed period under Section 53(5) of 1994 Act. Before proceeding on the merits of the case, it is necessary to reproduce the C.W.P.No.4883 of 2006 #3# relevant Sections 53(2) and 53(5) of 1994 Act for ready reference, which reads as under: “53(2). The Block Development and Panchayat Officer concerned may, on the application of Gram Panchayat or otherwise, for loss, waste or mis-application of Gram Fund or property belonging tothat Gram Panchayat and after giving adequate opportunity to Sarpanch or Panch, as the case may be, to explain, assess by order in writing the amount due from him on account of such loss, waste or misapplication of such Gram Fund or property and take necessary steps for its recovery. 53(5). 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 six years from the occurrence of the loss, waste or misapplication or after the expiry of two years from his ceasing to be a Sarpanch or Panch as the case may be, whichever is earlier.” A conjoint reading of Sections 53(2)& (5) reproduced hereabove makes it absolutely clear that the B.D.P.O is the competent authority to recover from any Sarpanch or Panch, as the case may be, any loss/waste or misappropriation of the panchayat funds after giving adequate opportunity to explain and further in view of the non-obstantive clause existing in Section 53(5), no person can be called upon to explain such alleged loss after the expiry of six years from the occurrence of the loss etc or after expiry of two years from his ceasing to be a Sarpanch, whichever is earlier. In the present case, a complaint against respondent No.4- Sarpanch for having misappropriated the funds was received in June, 1996 and an inquiry was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rewari, which found that respondent No.4 had caused loss of Rs.62633.25/- by misappropriating funds, however, it is undisputed that the B.D.P.O, the prescribed authority, under Section 53(2) of 1994 Act had issued a notice as required under the provisions, on 3.5.2000. It is further admitted that respondent No.4 ceased to be a Sarpanch w.e.f August, 1995. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prescribed authority i.e B.D.P.O had called C.W.P.No.4883 of 2006 #4# upon the petitioner to make good the loss of Rs.62,633.25/- caused to the Gram Panchayat beyond the prescribed period of limitation and hence the action is unsustainable. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Revisional Authority. Dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE August 28, 2008 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) manoj JUDGE