IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2188 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 Tarsem Lal .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr. B.S.Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who is ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Khurdpur, Block Adampur, District Jalandhar, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat (respondent No.1 herein) as well as the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Adampur (respondent No.5 herein), which has been affirmed in appeal. In the present case, a complaint was filed against the petitioner on 21.10.2003 alleging some illegalities and misappropriation of Panchayat funds made by the petitioner. When no action was taken on the said complaint, the complainant filed CWP No.2461 of 2005 which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 5.10.2005 by passing the following order:- C.W.P. No.2188 of 2008 -2- “Pursuant to order dated 4.8.2005 an affidavit has been filed by Mr.Avtar Singh Bhullar, District Development and Panchayat Officer, Nawanshahr. In the affidavit it is stated that after conducting the inquiry he has found that respondent No.7 (petitioner) has embezzled an amount of Rs.2,30,105/- of Panchayat funds. In view of the said affidavit, which is accompanied by the inquiry report as well, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the authorities concerned to take further action in terms of the inquiry report in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. In case, the competent authority does not take appropriate action expeditiously, it will be open to the petitioners to approach this court for appropriate orders.” Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 30.9.2005 (Annexure P5) to the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat to the effect that the Inquiry Officer did not properly conduct the enquiry, therefore, the enquiry be re-conducted. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of re-conducting the enquiry, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Adampur passed the assessment order dated 10.11.2005. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the said assessment order before the Special Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat (respondent No.2 herein). On that revision, respondent No.2 vide order dated 18.1.2006 directed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to pass the fresh assessment order after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, after making assessment of the development works, passed the impugned order dated 11.1.2007 (Annexure P2) under Section 216(2) of the Act, vide which he C.W.P. No.2188 of 2008 -3- recommended to the District Development and Panchayat Officer to recover the amount of Rs.2,30,105/- from the petitioner as Land Revenue. Against the above-said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 216(5) of the Act before the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat (exercising the powers of State Government). The said revision petition has been dismissed by respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 22.10.2007, while observing as under:- “During the hearing the Block Development & Panchayat Officer was asked whether he has obeyed the order dated 18.1.2006 of the State Government, if yes, then how? Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Adampur has informed through letter dated 10.8.2007 that as per the report 10.7.2006 of Executive Engineer (PR) Jalandhar that the measurement of development works done by the petitioner was already done by the Sub Divisional Officer (PR) in his presence. Thereafter Sub Divisional Officer (PR) Phillaur has again made the assessment in the presence of Sarpanch. The petitioner has also signed on the proceedings of these assessments. So the measurement of development works has already been done two times earlier in the presence of Sarpanch. So, it is not appropriate to make an assessment of those development works third time as Shri Avtar Singh Bhullar, Distt. Development & Panchayat Officer has filed the affidavit in a writ petition regarding this assessment of Rs.2,30,105/- and the Hon'ble High Court has ordered the recovery as per law. Now on dated 25.1.2007 the amount assessed has been declared as outstanding land revenue. After pursuing the case file and report dated 10.8.2007 of Block Development & Panchayat Officer it is clear that the assessment amount against the petitioner has become final and now recovery is being done as land revenue. So the petition against the letter in dispute of Block C.W.P. No.2188 of 2008 -4- Development & Panchayat Officer is dismissed as the petitioner is delaying the payment of recovery of assessment by prolonging the litigation.” Against these orders the petitioner has filed the instant petition. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of various orders annexed with the writ petition as well as the letter dated 3.10.2005 written by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Nawanshahr to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, copy of which has been supplied by the counsel for the petitioner in court. The learned ounsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order Annexure P-2 was passed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Adampur without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner is not tenable as the revisional authority while passing the impugned order has observed that as per the report dated 10.7.2006 of Executive Engineer (PR) Jalandhar, the measurement of development works executed by the petitioner was already done by the Sub Division Officer in his presence. Further, the Sub Divisional Officer, had again made the assessment in the presence of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has also signed on the proceedings of these assessment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not associated at the time of the assessment. Thus, taking into consideration all the materials and the contention raised by the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner had embezzled an amount of Rs.2,30,105/-, received from the Government by way of different grants by C.W.P. No.2188 of 2008 -5- making less expenditure. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 16, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE