CWP No. 812 of 2008. 26.6.2008 Present: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate for respondent No.4/Caveator. The election under The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was held in the month of December 2005. The petitioner was elected unanimously as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Poonag. The election of petitioner was assailed by respondent No.4 by filing an election petition before the prescribed authority, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Nichar. The election petition was accepted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) on 27.9.2007 and the election of the petitioner was set aside as Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Poonag under Section 174 (1) (b) of the Act. He preferred an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority on 19.10.2007. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority on 10.3.2008. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner- cum-Appellate Authority dated 10.3.2008 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that his client has been acquitted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 9.5.2000. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General and Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) and the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority are sustainable in the eyes of law since according to them the petitioner had incurred disqualification under Section 122 (1) (f) of The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It will be apt at this stage to reproduce section 122 (1) (f), which reads thus: “122. Disqualification.- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen, as and for being, an office bearer, of a Panchayat- (f) if he has been removed from public service or disqualified in public service. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 21.1.2001. He has, according to us, incurred disqualification under Section 122 (1) (f) of the Act. The orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) and the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority are in accordance with law. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in these orders. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that as per Section 9 of The Representation of People Act, 1950, his client was eligible to contest the election. Section 9 of The Representation of People Act, 1950 reads thus: “9.Disqualification for dismissal for corruption or disloyalty.- (1) A person who having held an office under the Government of India or under the Government of any State has been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State shall be disqualified for a period of five years from the date of such dismissal. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a certificate issued by the Election Commission to the effect that a person having held office under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, has or has not been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State shall be conclusive proof of that fact. Provided that no certificate to the effect that a person has been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the said person.” In case even apply Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, we find that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 21.1.2001 whereas the election took place on 7.12.2005. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot get benefit of the aforesaid provisions as he has not completed five years. In the light of the above observations, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to cost. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 26, 2008. (cr)