CWP No. 5270 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5270 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.02.2011 Karnail Kaur, Ex-Sarpanch ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Concisely, the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Jalajan, Tehsil Khnaa, District Ludhiana, in the year 1998, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein referred to be as “the Act”). Her term expired in the month of June, 2003. The complainant Karam Singh was stated to have contested the election against the son of the petitioner and was defeated. He was nourishing a grudge against the petitioner and his son, on account of his defeat. Complainant Karam Singh and others were stated to have filed a complaint dated 31.08.2006 (Annexure P1) against the petitioner and her son. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Khanna (respondent No. 4) (for short “the B.D.P.O”) issued notice dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure P4) to the petitioner, in connection with letter No. 39 dated 02.03.2010, requiring her to CWP No. 5270 of 2010 -2- be present at the spot on 09.03.2010 in the village for enquiry to be conducted by Sub Divisional Officer Panchayati Raj, Public Words, Samrala. 2. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned notice (Annexure P4), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that the initiation of enquiry, vide impugned notice (Annexure P4), pertaining to the relevant period from 1998-2003 when she remained as a Sarpanch, is illegal, without jurisdiction and against the statutory provisions of the Act. 3. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed their joint written statement while the remaining private respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed their separate joint written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. Further, it was admitted that some of the villagers made complaint in the year 2003 against the petitioner, pertaining to the violation/mis-appropriation of the amount during the period of her (petitioner) Sarpanch from 1998-2003. As the enquiry could not be completed earlier, therefore, now show cause notice (Annexure P4) was issued to her. 4. The private respondent Nos. 5 to 7 toed the line of pleadings contained in the written statement of the official respondents. In all, according to the contesting respondents that they have every right to conduct enquiry against the petitioner on the indicated complaint. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record, with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted, in this regard. CWP No. 5270 of 2010 -3- 6. As is evident from the record that the petitioner remained Sarpanch and was stated to have mis-appropriate the funds of the Gram Panchayat during her tenure as Sarpanch w.e.f 1998-2003. The enquiry to that effect was initiated, in pursuance of the impugned notice (Annexure P4). 7. Above being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, arises for determination, in this case is, as to whether the enquiry can be initiated against the petitioner after the expiry of her term as a Sarpanch. after a period of 7 years. 8. Having regards to the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parites, to my mind, answer is in the negative and no such enquiry can be initiated against the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned notice (Annexure P4). 9. As is clear that Section 216 of the Act regulates the liability of the members of Panchayats in this context which postulates that every member of a Panchayat shall be liable for the loss, waste or mis-application of any money or property belonging to the Panchayat, if such loss, waste or mis-application is a consequence of his neglect or misconduct while such member and shall also be liable to pay interest at the prescribed rate, from the date of loss, waste or mis- application, on the amount assessed under sub section (2) or sub section (3) as the case may be. 10. Sequelly, sub-section 4 of this section further posits that 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 4 years from the occurrence of the loss, waste or mis-application or after the expiry of 2 years from his ceasing to be member, whichever is later. Hence, a conjoint reading of this provision would reveal that no enquiry can be initiated against the Sarpanch, after a period of 2 years of the expiry of her term as a Sarpanch. 11. What is not disputed here is that the petitioner remained Sarpanch w.e.f 1998-2003, therefore, the initiation of the enquiry against her, in pursuance CWP No. 5270 of 2010 -4- of impugned notice (Annexure P4) after a period of 7 years from the expiry of her term of Sarpanch, is not only illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction but against the statutory provisions of the Act as well. Therefore, impugned notice (Annexure P4) cannot legally be maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed on a judgment of this Court in a case titled as Ram Kanwar vs. The State of Haryana, (2011-1), 161 P.L.R 359. 12. No other legal point worth consideration is urged or pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted and the impugned notice (Annexure P4) and all other enquiry proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, in this context. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge February 15, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No