IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 12162 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.8.2009. Devi Chand --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) This petition is directed against the order dated 8.5.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. The Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Development & Panchayats Department, Chandigarh as also the demand notice dated 17.6.2009 (Annexure P-9), whereby an amount of Rs. 71,625/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was working as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shergarh Khalsa, Block Indri, Distt. Karnal. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.9.2007 on the basis of certain allegations against him. His reply was solicited which he filed on 29.9.2007 and denied the allegations. After receipt of the reply of the petitioner, respondent no.2 asked respondent no.3 for his comments. The BDPO, Indri summoned the petitioner along with the record. It appears that the BDPO submitted his comments and found only some irregularities and minor allegations, proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter placed under suspension vide order dated 7.2.2008 and a regular inquiry was ordered to be conducted against him. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Development & Panchayat CWP. No. 12162 of 2009 -2- Department, Haryana. The Financial Commissioner while setting aside the order of suspension, remanded the case to respondent no.2 with the observations that the report of BDPO dated 31.10.2007 be taken into consideration. The regular inquiry was conducted by the SDM, Karnal, who submitted his report dated 15.7.2008. In the said report various charges were held to be proved against the petitioner. The Inquiry Report was considered by the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and passed the order dated 2.1.2009, dismissing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and also ordered recovery of Rs. 71,625/-. This order was again assailed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana under Section 51 (5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The Financial Commissioner/Appellate Authority vide order dated 8.5.2009 (Annexure P-8) accepted the appeal partially. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of dismissal, however, recovery was not interfered. On the basis of the aforesaid order the BDPO, Indri has issued the impugned demand notice dated 17.6.2009 (Annexure P- 9) asking the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 71,625/-. The main contention of the petitioner is that once the Appellate Authority i.e. Financial Commissioner had remanded the case and directed the Deputy Commissioner to take into consideration the report of the BDPO, it was obligatory upon the Deputy Commissioner to have taken into consideration the report of the BDPO and pass the appropriate order. However, the Deputy Commissioner while ignoring the aforesaid directions has ordered the recovery against the petitioner. I have perused the order impugned. The Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-7) has taken into CWP. No. 12162 of 2009 -3- consideration the comments of BDPO, in view of the directions of the Financial Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner was, however, of the opinion that though, regular inquiry has been conducted but in between the BDPO has sent a separate report, which is not appropriate. On that basis the Deputy Commissioner/competent authority has returned his findings based upon the regular inquiry. The competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner on consideration of the regular inquiry has returned the specific findings regarding the recovery as also the dismissal. However, the Appellate Authority set aside the dismissal only and recovery has been upheld. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of the BDPO alone should be taken into consideration ignoring the regular inquiry cannot be accepted. Since the regular inquiry had been conducted, specific findings have been returned. Under the given circumstances, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 12.8.2009 lucky