Paramjeet Singh, J.
CM-15254-CWP-2014
1. The present application is for impleading the legal representatives of deceased-Sher Singh (respondent No. 5), who is stated to have expired. The legal representatives of deceased-Sher Singh are mentioned in para 2 of the application. It is stated that there is no other legal heir of deceased-Sher Singh except the persons mentioned in the application.
Heard.
Application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The persons mentioned in the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal heirs of deceased for the limited purpose of pursuing this writ petition. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.
CWP No. 3286-1993
2. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders/letters dated 30.09.1987 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 3-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Jullundur and 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 2-Director, Panchayats, Punjab.
3. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that election to the Gram Panchayat was held in the month of September, 1983. In the said election, fresh Gram Panchayat was constituted and Tarsem Singh was elected as a Sarpanch. Earlier to the said election, respondent No. 5-Sher Singh was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and ceased to be so in September, 1983. There is averment in the writ petition that the Gram Panchayat owns 135 kanals and 13 marlas of land in village Garhi Ajit Singh. The said land remained vacant and was not given on lease for cultivation which resulted into loss to the Gram Panchayat. It is further averred that there was omission on the part of Ex. Sarpanch, respondent No. 5. Thereafter, complaint dated 10.09.1985 was filed against respondent No. 5 and matter was inquired into. Notice dated 01.07.1987 was issued for explaining the irregularities and wrongful expenditure made by him during his tenure and reference to audit note w.e.f. 1/79 to 1/84 has also been made. Respondent No. 4-Block Development and Panchayat Officer passed assessment order dated 31.07.1987 whereby an amount of Rs. 85,963.35 was assessed as loss to the Gram Panchayat and respondent No. 5 was held liable to pay the same. However, vide impugned letter/order dated 30.09.1987 (Annexure P-6), respondent No. 3 held that respondent No. 5 is not liable for the aforesaid loss, rather block officers are responsible for the same. Thereafter, vide impugned letter dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-7), respondent No. 2 ordered consignment of the complaint filed against respondent No. 5 on the ground that charges were not proved.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned letters/orders have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The assessment order dated 31.07.1987 (Ex. P-3) has become final and appeal was maintainable against it. It could have been challenged only in appropriate proceedings.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 5 vehemently contend that respondent No. 5 ceased to be Sarpanch in September, 1983 and notice was issued on 01.07.1987 i.e. after the expiry of statutory period of one year. Reference to Section 105 (4) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 has been made. The recovery notice could have been issued to a person only within a year from his ceasing to be a member of the Panchayat, therefore, the order (Annexure P-3) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and impugned orders passed by the authorities are legal and valid.
7. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
8. Only issue that arises for consideration is whether recovery can be effected from respondent No. 5, an Ex. Sarpanch, in view of Section 105(4) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (in short, ''the 1952 Act''). Section 105(4) of the 1952 Act reads as under:
"105(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no person shall be called upon to explain why he should not be required to make good any loss, after the expiry of four years from the occurrence of the loss, waste or misapplication, or after the expiry of one year from his ceasing to be a member, whichever, is earlier.
9. Perusal of Section 105(4) of the 1952 Act reveals that it is pari materia with Sections 53(2) and (5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which have been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat, Shahpur v. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana Development and Panchayat Department and others, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 599. In Gram Panchayat, Shahpur (supra), it has been held as under:
"6. A conjoint reading of Sections 53(2) & (5) reproduced here above makes it absolutely clear that B.D.P.O. is the competent authority to recover from any Sarpanch or Panch, as the case may be, any loss/waste or misappropriation of the panchayat funds after giving adequate opportunity to explain and further in view of the non-obstantive clause existing in Section 53(5), no person can be called upon to explain such alleged loss after the expiry of six years from the occurrence of the loss etc. or after expiry of two years from his ceasing to be a Sarpanch, whichever is earlier."
Since respondent No. 5 ceased to be Sarpanch in September, 1983 and notice for commission of alleged irregularities and wrongful expenditure was issued on 01.07.1987 i.e. after lapse of more than one year from his ceasing to be Sarpanch, therefore, the said notice cannot be sustained and the impugned orders have rightly been passed by the authorities.
In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.
Dismissed.
No order as to costs.
