Civil Writ Petition No. 7278 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 7278 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.7.2010 Labh Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for respondent No.4. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 8555 of 2010 Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Written statement, filed on behalf of respondent No.4, is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No. 7278 of 2010 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that order dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure P7), passed by the Revisional Authority, be set aside as material argument, advanced by the petitioner, was not dealt with by the Revisional Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that inter-alia, various arguments were raised before the Revisional Authority and one Civil Writ Petition No. 7278 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of the arguments was that the amount is not recoverable from the petitioner as he has not misappropriated the same while carrying out the development works in his capacity as Sarpanch. Learned counsel had, however, made an offer that in case the development work is assessed by some senior officer, in presence of the petitioner and if he is still found guilty of causing loss to the Gram Panchayat, he would deposit the amount of loss. The relevant portion of order dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure P7), wherein this contention was recorded, reads as under:- “...It was further argued that the amount is not recoverable from the petitioner as the petitioner has not misappropriated any amount while carrying out the development works and the same can be ascertained by getting the development works assessed by a Senior Officer in the presence of the petitioner. If the petitioner is still found guilty of causing loss to the Gram Panchayat, after he is afforded due opportunities to explain his position, he will deposit the amount of loss and is ready to submit a bank guarantee amounting to Rs.12,33,367/-. Concluding his arguments, he prayed for acceptance of this revision petition”. Learned counsel further submits that the Revisional Authority, taking into consideration this argument, in isolation, had ordered a time bound inquiry to be conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order on deposit of bank guarantee, by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that Civil Writ Petition No. 7278 of 2010 (O&M) 3 from the above said argument, it cannot be construed that he had forgone the argument that the recovery is barred by limitation. This aspect has not been dealt with by the Revisional Authority. Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of and the matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authority to pass a fresh order considering the arguments, raised by the petitioner. Till the Revisional Authority takes a fresh decision, a bank guarantee, furnished by the petitioner, shall remain in vogue and if necessary, the petitioner shall renew the same. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 7, 2010 “DK”