Civil Writ Petition No. 8962 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 8962 of 2005 Date of decision : 09.02.2010 Mandhir Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. NPS Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for respondent No. 5. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) Challenge in this petition is to order dated 03.11.2004 Annexure P-3 passed by Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab whereby he affixed liability on the petitioner to pay fifty percent of the amount due as loss caused to the Gram Panchayat, Mahalon. Brief factual background of the case is that during the tenure of respondent No. 5 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mahalon grant of Rs. 3,94,000/- were given for carrying out development works in the village. A complaint was received wherein it was alleged that funds given for development purposes have been mis-utilized by the Sarpanch. An enquiry ensued. In the enquiry, it was found that loss caused to the Gram Panchayat is to the tune of Rs. 3,47,047/-. Enquiry report was submitted by Civil Writ Petition No. 8962 of 2005 2 Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nawanshahr. Respondent No. 5/Sarpanch preferred an appeal against the said order. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that despite service neither Sarpanch gave the amount kept by her nor she produced the record of the Gram Panchayat. It was also observed that Block Development and Panchayat officer on enquiry from UCO Bank found that Sarpanch (respondent No. 5) had withdrawn the amount meant for Panchayat, but the same were not spent on the development works. The appeal was thus, dismissed. A revision was preferred by respondent No. 5. The same was disposed of vide impugned order 03.11.2004 (Annexure P-3). In the said order, the liability of the petitioner was also affixed along with the Sarpanch (respondent No. 5). Both were held liable to bear fifty percent of the loss caused to the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a perusal of the order Annexure P-3 would show that the same contains no reasons whatsoever for affixing liability on the petitioner. He submits that petitioner was neither a party before the said authority nor at any stage of proceedings. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. According to him, the impugned order contains no reasons whatsoever for holding the petitioner liable for alleged loss caused to the Gram Panchayat. He submits that there is not a shred of evidence on record to affix liability of the petitioner. He has referred to report of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Annexure P-1 as well as order passed by District Development and Panchayat Officer, Nawanshahar, Annexure P-2 to contend that there is no indication therein that petitioner was responsible for any loss caused to the Gram Panchayat. He submits that the order is absolutely non speaking in Civil Writ Petition No. 8962 of 2005 3 nature as regards role of the petitioner and the same deserves to be set-aside. He further submits that matter may be remanded to the same authority for decision afresh. The prayer for remanding of the matter to the Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat Department is not opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The operative part of the impugned order dated 03.11.2004 (Annexure P-3) passed by Special Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab reads thus:- “The lower court and the assessing authority have given enough time to the petitioner and now this has become final amount which should be paid back to the Gram Panchayat immediately. The concerned Panchayat Secretary is also equally responsible along with the petitioner. So out of the total amount of Rs. 34,7047/- the half amount of Rs. 1,73,523.50 is assessed to the petitioner and the notice be issued to the panchayat secretary for the recovery of the second half of this amount of Rs. 1,73,523.50 and the disciplinary proceedings be initiated against him under the Punjab Panchayat Secretaries (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1979. With this order the orders of the lower court are partially modified. Order pronounced.” It is evident that aforesaid conclusion arrived at by Special Secretary is not supported by any reason whatsoever. He has held the petitioner liable for fifty percent of the loss caused to the Gram Panchayat Civil Writ Petition No. 8962 of 2005 4 without assigning any reason therefor. The petitioner was neither a party before the said authority nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. It is inexplicable how the authority below affixed liability of the petitioner without assigning any reason. Admittedly, the authority was exercising statutory powers bestowed under Section 216(5) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the said authority to pass a reasoned order. Needless to say that any authority acting under statute, while deciding the appeal or revision would give a decision informed by reasons and not bereft thereof. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In fact, the reasons given in the order reveal the mind of authority and support the decision ultimately arrived at. This, however, is not the position in the present case. The decision to affix responsibility of the petitioner who was a Panchayat Secretary appears to be non speaking and abrupt. Under the circumstances, this court accepts the plea of counsel for the parties for remand of the case to the same authority for decision afresh. The order Annexure P-3 is thus, set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the same authority for decision afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The parties are directed to remain present before the said authority on 26.03.2010. Allowed in aforesaid terms. February 09, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE