CWP No.20428 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.20428 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.01.2010 Dharambir Sarpanch ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). Challenge in this petition is to order dated 30th July, 2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by Deputy Commissioner, Rewari, vide which the petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch. Quashing has also been sought of the order dated 15th December, 2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by the appellate authority i.e. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh. Brief factual background of the case is that the petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kamalpur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari. Certain residents of the village submitted a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner stating that the petitioner was not distributing the pension as per government instructions and had committed irregularities therein. A show cause notice dated 28th May, 2009 was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply on 9th CWP No.20428 of 2009 2 June, 2009. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by District Social Welfare Officer, Rewari. On the basis of the preliminary inquiry report, submitted by the said officer, the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 30th July, 2009 (Annexure P-3), placed the petitioner under suspension in exercise of powers vested in him by Section 51 (1) (b) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, respondent No.1 herein. The same was, however, dismissed by a detailed order, Annexure P-4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. At best, there can be some irregularities in distribution of pension. However, no illegality, whatsoever, has been committed by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that in respect of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, an FIR No.126 dated 24th July, 2009 (under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 469, 506 and 120B IPC) was registered at Police Station Kasola. It was alleged that he obtained signatures/thumb impressions of persons other than the actual beneficiaries, with intention to embezzle government funds. The Inquiry Officer also in his preliminary inquiry, came to a prima facie conclusion that the petitioner had acted with intention to embezzle pension fund. It appears that the petitioner admitted before the Inquiry Officer that thumb impressions of certain persons, who were not actually entitled to pension, were taken inadvertently. CWP No.20428 of 2009 3 Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that allegations against the petitioner are serious and thus he has been rightly suspended by the competent authority in exercise of the power under Section 51 (1) (b) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. Only factual contentions have been raised, which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction by this court. No other point has been argued. The petition is thus devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 08, 2010 'rajpal'