Civil Writ Petition No.3149 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3149 of 2010 Date of Decision:13.01.2011 Gurmeet Kaur ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-Gurmeet Kaur wife of Baghel Singh, was elected as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Shahpur Goraya, District Gurdaspur, in the previous elections, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). She had completed her tenure with effect from June, 2003 to June, 2008. She was stated to have carried out many development works in the village. After the expiry of her term, the complainant-party, which came into power in the recent elections, made some frivolous complaint against the petitioner on the ground that she did not act in proper discharge of her duties, while acting as a Sarpanch. She has not accounted for 79,000 bricks, belonging to Gram Panchayat, regarding which the payment has been made to the brick-kiln owner of the Gram Panchayat and, thus, she has misused her official capacity as a Sarpanch. 2. The petitioner claimed that she has carried out the development works in the village vide Resolution(Annexure P-1), as per rules and regulations Civil Writ Petition No.3149 of 2010 2 and a false complaint has been filed against her, after the expiry of term as a Sarpanch, but respondent No.2 without holding an enquiry, passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2010(Annexure P-3), directing her to deposit Rs.2,33,050/-, as value of 79,000 bricks. 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-3), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned order has been passed, without issuance of any show cause notice, without affording any opportunity of being heard, without holding any enquiry and against the statutory provisions of Section 216 of the Act. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition and concealment of facts. The bricks were stated to have been misused by the petitioner during her term of Sarpanch. However, the respondents have cleverly concealed the facts with regard to the issuance of show cause notice, providing of opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and holding an enquiry by respondent No.2, before passing the impugned order(Annexure P-3). It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 6. What is not disputed here is that the petitioner has already completed her term of Sarpanch with effect from June, 2003 to June, 2008. She claimed that the development works have been carried out in the village, as per Resolution (Annexure P-1) and after following the due procedure. The adverse impugned Civil Writ Petition No.3149 of 2010 3 order(Annexure P-3) has been passed ex parte, without issuance of any show cause notice, without giving her any opportunity of being heard and without conducting an enquiry in this respect by respondent No.2. It has been clearly so stated in para No.6 of the writ petition, but the same has not been specifically denied by the respondents. Moreover, no cogent material or document is forthcoming on record to establish that any show cause notice was ever issued, or any opportunity was provided to the petitioner, or any enquiry was held by respondent No.2, before passing the adverse impugned order(Annexure P-3) against her. 7. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the impugned adverse order(Annexure P-3) has been passed by respondent No.2 at the back of the petitioner, directing her to deposit an amount of Rs.2,33,050/-, in lieu of the indicated bricks, particularly when she has stoutly denied her liability. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of respondent No.2 to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, to hold an enquiry in a prudent manner, after obtaining/considering the relevant record and evidence, before fastening the liability on her, that too, much after the expiry of her term of Sarpanch. In this manner, the impugned order (Annexure P-3) cannot legally be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is hereby accepted and the impugned order(Annexure P-3) is set aside in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. Needless to mention that, the respondents would be at liberty to conduct a regular enquiry, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner in this context, in accordance with law. January 13, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE