IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.19323 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 04, 2008 Hari Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Makkar, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.S.S.Dalal, Advocate, for respondent No.7. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who is an ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Muradgarh, Block Indri, Tehsil and District Karnal, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the letter dated 14.8.2006 (Annexure P5) written by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Indri; as well as the resolution dated 17.11.2006 (Annexure P7) passed by the Gram Panchayat, whereby the Gram Panchayat had resolved to recover an amount of Rs.5,43,696/- from the petitioner as embezzled amount of the Gram Panchayat funds. Undisputedly, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer is authorized to take action against the Sarpanch or the ex-Sarpanch for C.W.P. No.19323 of 2006 -2- causing loss to the Gram Panchayat funds under Section 53 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and the amount of loss caused to the Gram Panchayat has to be recovered from the Sarpanch or the ex-Sarpanch after inquiring the matter and giving adequate opportunity to the Sarpanch or the ex-Sarpanch. In the present case, as far as conducting of the inquiry is concerned, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer has already conducted an inquiry after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. Copy of the Enquiry Report has been annexed as Annexure R-1. This fact has also not been controverted by the counsel for the petitioner. The grouse of the counsel for the petitioner is that before giving any notice on the basis of the said Enquiry Report, the Gram Panchayat has passed the aforesaid resolution for recovery of the alleged amount. The Gram Panchayat has passed the said resolution on the basis of the letter written by the Deputy Commissioner. Since under Section 53 of the Act, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer is the only authority who can recover the amount of loss caused to the Gram Panchayat after following the procedure as provided in the said Section, counsel for the respondents has very farily submitted that in this case the procedure as prescribed under Section 53 of the Act has not been followed as on the basis of the Enquiry Report no notice for recovery was issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to the petitioner. In view of the said legal flaw, counsel for both the parties have agreed that let a notice be given to the petitioner, and thereafter, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer will pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner and till the appropriate order is passed by the Block C.W.P. No.19323 of 2006 -3- Development and Panchayat Officer regarding the disputed amount after taking into consideration the report of the enquiry already conducted as well as the reply submitted by the petitioner, no recovery of the disputed amount will be effected from the petitioner. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer is directed to take the said decision within a period of three months. If an adverse order is passed against the petitioner, it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 04, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE