Civil Writ Petition No.4500 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 14.3.2011 Jaswant Rai Ex-Sarpanch ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.B.S.Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) Succinctly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Landhran, District Jalandhar, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). As is clear from the regular inquiry report (Annexure P5) that complainants Joga Singh son of Pritam Singh and Ved Parkash son of Uddo Ram moved a complaint against the petitioner, inter-alia with the allegations that he has illegally passed the resolutions dated 27.7.2005 and 16.2.2006 and incorporated the same at pages 39 and 35 respectively of the proceedings book of the village Gram Panchayat. During the course of inquiry of complaint, the petitioner was asked to produce the record. Instead of producing, he intentionally destroyed/misplaced the entire record from 25.12.1992 to 30.8.2007. In the wake of these allegations, the District Development and Panchayat Officer (for brevity “DDPO”) conducted the inquiry and sent his report dated 18.10.2007 to Director Rural Development and Panchayat (respondent No.2) (for short “Director”). 2. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations, petitioner was suspended, by virtue of order dated 1.2.2008 and regular inquiry was entrusted to Additional Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.3) (for brevity Civil Writ Petition No.4500 of 2011 2 “ADC”). The allegations against the petitioner were proved that he has negligently misplaced the very important record, like proceedings book, stock register etc. of the Gram Panchayat. Thus, he has failed to discharge his duty. After completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer sent his report dated 9.4.2009 (Annexure P5) to the Director. The show cause notice dated 25.5.2009 was sent to the petitioner to explain his position in this context, to which, he filed reply dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure P6). After considering the reply, the Director removed the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch and restrained him from contesting the election for a further period of five years under section 20 (2) of the Act, by way of impugned order dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure P7) (conveyed on 2.7.2009). 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as well by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government (respondent No.1) (for short “appellate authority”), by means of order dated 13.7.2009 (Annexure P8). The Civil Writ Petition bearing No.14215 of 2009 filed by the petitioner against the indicated order was accepted and matter was remanded to the appellate authority for deciding it afresh by passing a speaking order by this Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 31.3.2010. The appellate authority again dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 31.5.2010 (Annexure P9). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P7 and P9), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this regard. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has lodged DDR (rapat) dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure P2) and published the notice dated 4.4.2007 (Annexure P4) in the newspaper, with regard to misplacement of the Civil Writ Petition No.4500 of 2011 3 panchayat record and thus he is not at fault, so, the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record, that during the course of inquiry on the complaint of Joga Singh and Ved Parkash, in respect of illegally passing the resolutions dated 27.7.2005 and 16.2.2006 and wrongly incorporating the same at page Nos.39 and 35 respectively in the proceeding book of the village Gram Panchayat, petitioner was directed to produce the entire record, but instead of producing, he has misplaced the entire record with effect from the years 1992 to 2007. The ADC found the petitioner guilty and taking into consideration his report, the Director removed him from the office of Sarpanch, by way of impugned order (Annexure P7). The appeal after remand was again decided against the petitioner by the appellate authority, by means of impugned order (Annexure P9), the operative part of which is as under:- “After hearing arguments of both the parties and keeping in view of the record produced on the file of the case, I came to this conclusion that complete responsibility by keeping the record properly is of the appellant and by misplacing this record he has proved to be careless U/s 87 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The whole responsibility of the record of the Gram Panchayat is of Sarpanch and if Sarpanch do not take proper care of the record then this carelessness should be taken seriously. Appellant has misplaced the Panchayat record that proceedings register from dated 25.12.1992 to 30.08.2007, Form No.4, No.1 to No.45 and the file of the grant of Rs.1 lac which was received for stadium, stock register from the year 1992-97 and record of account register year 1992-97 negligently. This record of such type which cannot be collected as it is because extra copy of the record is no where present. Appellant has not even misplaced the record of during his term instead he has also misplaced the record of Panchayat proceedings. So the appellant is not entitled to any lenient behaviour for his negligence. So due to his negligence Panchayat has caused huge loss. So there is no need of any interference in the order of Director Rural Development and Panchayat passed in connection with the appellant. So, the earlier order passed by this Hon'ble Court has been upheld and this appeal of appellant has been dismissed.” Civil Writ Petition No.4500 of 2011 4 8. The mere fact that petitioner has lodged rapat (Annexure P2) and published the notice (Annexure P4) in the newspaper will not exonerate him from the grave misconduct, committed in misplacing the entire record negligently with effect from the years 1992 to 2007, which cannot be reconstructed. 9. The perusal of the record/inquiry report (Annexure P5) would reveal that petitioner was required to produce the record before the Inquiry Officer during the course of inquiry on a complaint made by Joga Singh and Ved Parkash. Instead of producing, the petitioner negligently misplaced the entire record. The explanation put forth by him that he was carrying the entire record of the Gram Panchayat from the years 1992 to 2007 on his scooter on the fateful day when it was stated to have been misplaced, is not only speculative but highly improbable as well and is not believable as such in this regard. 10. Meaning thereby, the appellate authority having analyzed the cogent evidence on record in the right perspective, coupled with the admission of the petitioner, recorded the finding that he has negligently misplaced the entire record of village Gram Panchayat. Such orders containing valid reasons based on the cogent material, cannot possibly be interfered with, while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned orders (Annexues P7 and P9) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 14.3.2011 Judge AS