CWP No. 9727 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9727 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.8.2009 Karam Singh and others ..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4. ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a direction against the respondents to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.5 who happens to be the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Dhahar, District Panipat and who is alleged to have embezzled a large amount of Panchayat funds. The petitioners case is that complaints filed before the Deputy Commissioner against the Sarpanch having proved CWP No. 9727 of 2009 [2] futile leaves no option for the petitioner except to knock the door of this Court. A mandamus directing the authorities to initiate action against the delinquent Sarpanch has therefore been prayed for. In response to a notice issued by the Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is inter-alia stated that the delinquent Sarpanch had been removed by the respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1995. Against the said order or removal, the aggrieved Sarpanch preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner who set aside the said order and directed that the amount of loss suffered by the Panchayat ought to be quantified and recovered from the Sarpanch and the Junior Engineer who were responsible for the same. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner appears to have quantified the amount of loss and started recovery proceedings against the Sarpanch once again. Aggrieved by the said order, the Sarpanch again approached the Financial Commissioner in appeal to assail the quantification of loss. The matter is now pending with respondent No. 1 who appears to have stayed the recovery of the outstanding amount recoverable from the Sarpanch. Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the earlier direction issued by the Financial Commissioner for recovery of the amount of loss caused by the Sarpanch has been negated by the very same officer issuing a stay order against such recovery. He further points out that the Sarpanch has during the intervening period committed some further embezzlements, regarding which a complaint has been made to the Deputy CWP No. 9727 of 2009 [3] Commissioner, on which the Deputy Commissioner does not appear to have taken any action. Mr. Malik, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana on the other hand argued that the earlier order of Financial Commissioner had not quantified the amount of loss which was to be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner. Since the Deputy Commissioner has quantified the amount of loss, the aggrieved Sarpanch was entitled to question the same before the Financial Commissioner. There was, therefore, no impropriety on the part of the Financial Commissioner examining the issue whether the quantification of loss was proper. There is in our opinion merit in that submission. The quantification of loss allegedly caused by the Sarpanch was not a matter which was determined by the Financial Commissioner. That was a matter to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the earlier order. Once the quantification of loss has been undertaken, the aggrieved party could prefer an appeal against the said quantification. The Financial Commissioner therefore committed no impropriety in entertaining the appeal. Whether or not the Sarpanch is liable to reimburse any amount, if so, what is the said amount, is a matter, which the Financial Commissioner is expected to examine in appeal. All that we need say is that Financial Commissioner would do well to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of six months from today. As regards the allegation of further embezzlement committed by respondent No.5, the matter is left to be examined by the Deputy Commissioner for appropriate action in accordance with law. CWP No. 9727 of 2009 [4] Although the petitioner appears to have made certain representations, copies whereof have been filed with the writ petition, Mr. Malik submits that none of the said representations bear any date. In the circumstances, it would be proper for the petitioner to file a proper representation within four weeks from today addressed to the Deputy Commissioner in which event the Deputy Commissioner would look into the same also and pass appropriate orders expeditiously but not later than six months. Thereafter, writ petition is with the above observation and directions disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 07.08.2009 'ravinder'