C.W.P.No.17724 of 2007 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.17724 of 2007 Date of decision: 23.09.2008 Lashkar Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the respondents. JASWANT SINGH,J Petitioner was elected Panch of the Gram Panchayat of Village Kalewal Fattu, P.S. Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur (For short “Gram Panchayat”) for the period from 1998 to 2003. He was appointed as Acting Sarpanch for the period from 6.5.2000 to 1.3.2001 during the absence of the elected Sarpanch. After he ceased to be a Panch/Member of the said Gram Panchayat, he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.9050/- vide letter dated 2.6.2004 issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Mahilpur (respondent No.1). The petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.6.2004 (Annexure P.4) stating that the amount in question already stood deposited. However, respondent No.1 issued another letter dated 27.7.2006 requesting the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount as a loss caused to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner filed another reply dated 10.8.2006 (Annexure P.5) submitting therein that the amount assessed as loss already stood deposited and the expenditure explained. The B.D.P.O-respondent No.1 after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner passed the impugned order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure P.6) exercising his powers C.W.P.No.17724 of 2007 #2# under sub-section (2) of Section 216 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (For short “1994 Act”) holding the petitioner as guilty for committing an embezzlement of panchayat fund amounting to Rs.9050/- and thereby directing him to deposit the said amount in the panchayat account within a period of 30 days. The B.D.P.O (respondent No.1) found that the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.11500/- pertaining to the illegal auction of sale of trees standing on shamlat lands and he had, after nine months, only deposited Rs.2450/- in the account of the Gram Panchayat in the Punjab and Sind Bank on 22.10.2001. With regard to the remaining amount of Rs.9050/-, the explanation given by the petitioner that he had spent an amount of Rs.8800/- for the purchase of bricks for the village school and the rest of the amount of Rs.250/- had been given by him to the Sarpanch Satvir Singh for filling the village pond, was not accepted on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce any resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for committing the expenditure to the tune of Rs.9050/- as also no entry of this expenditure was made in the cash book. The petitioner filed an appeal before the D.D.P.O, Hoshiarpur under sub-section (3) of Section 216 of 1994 Act against the aforesaid order dated 15.9.2006, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure P.8). Thereafter, a revision petition before the Secretary, Punjab Govt Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, under sub-section (5) of Section 216 of 1994 Act was filed impugning the orders dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure P.6) and 23.11.2006 (Annexure P.8) and the same was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.10.2007 (Annexure P.10) by observing as under: “The petitioner while misusing his post has sold the trees standing on the Shamlat land without any prior permission of the Panchayat Department and Forest Department and also violated the rules. He had got deposited Rs.2450/- in the Punjab and Sind Bank on 22.10.2001. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer vide his letters dated 2.6.2004, 12.7.2004 and 2.9.2004 in the assessment proceedings against the petitioner has given him full opportunity to produce his defence and in end he detected the C.W.P.No.17724 of 2007 #3# embezzlement of Rs.9050/-. The petitioner neither in appeal nor in the revision petition has produced any solid documentary evidence before this Court, on the basis of which some relief can be given to him. Assessment has correctly been made against the petitioner. As such while dismissing this petition, it is ordered that he may deposit an amount of Rs.9050/- along with interest in the Panchayat account.” We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We find no legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the authorities. We further find that the action of the B.D.P.O (respondent No.1) under sub-section (2) of Section 216 of 1994 Act was within the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 216 of 1994 Act, which provides that no person after the expiry of four years from the occurrence of the loss or after the expiry of two years from ceasing to be a Member, whichever is later, shall be called upon to explain why the said loss not be recovered from him. We further find that the Revisional Authority has ordered the recovery of Rs.9050/- with interest but the rate of interest has not been specified. Therefore, we direct that the rate of interest shall be paid @ Rs.6% per annum w.e.f 15.9.2006 till the date of realization. Dismissed with the aforesaid directions. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE September 23, 2008 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) manoj JUDGE