M.M. Punchhi and Amarjit Chowdhry, JJ.@mdashA point of jurisdiction only has been raised in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Katoo, Block Barnala, District Sangrur. He attracted a complaint. After some
preliminary enquiry, Shri Narinder Saroop, Joint Director, Panchayats, exercising the powers of the Director, Panchayats, delegated to him vide
Punjab Government notification No. So. 19/PA-4/53/5-107/96 dated May 16, 1986, suspended the petitioner u/s 102(4) of the Punjab Gram
Panchayat Act, 1952 (for short ''the Act''). The petitioner challenged the said order in this Court by means of CWP No. 752 of 1988. It was
dismissed in limine by passing the following order:-
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed by him that an appeal is maintainable against the said order u/s 102(6) of
the Act before the State Government and that no appeal has been filed by the petitioner. It is contended by Mr. Dhillon that the State Government
has delegated the powers to hear the appeals to the Director of Panchayats, whereas the impugned order has been passed by the Joint Director as
delegatee of the Director and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served if an appeal is filed, as the Director cannot hear an appeal against his
own order. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of the view that the petitioner should avail of the remedy of the appeal
before the Government If the powers of hearing the appeals have been delegated by the Government to the Director, we trust the appeal will not
be heard and decided by him, but it will be heard and decided by some other competent authority.
With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government u/s 102(6) of the Act. This was dismissed by Shri P. Ram, IAS. Joint Secretary to
Government Punjab, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, exercising the powers of the government vide order dated May 25,
1988, Annexure P-4. The petitioner has approached this Court by means of this petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Joint Secretary in
deciding the appeal.
4. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab 1979 P.L.J. 15, passed by a Division Bench
of this Court consisting of D.S. Tewatia and K.S. Tiwana, JJ. to contend that an official who has the dual power of the government and that of the
Director, Panchayats, cannot exercise the appellate powers against an order of the Joint Director passed as Director. The precedent, however,
does not support the learned counsel. There the original order had been passed by the Deputy Divisional Director of Panchayats exercising the
powers of the Director and the appeal u/s 102(6) of the Act had been disposed of by the Deputy Secretary, Development exercising the powers
of the Director. In that situation, it was held by the Bench that an official of the coordinate rank could not exercise powers on behalf of the
Government under sub-section (6) of section 102 of the Act while sitting in appeal on the order of the Director. This case is obviously
distinguishable from the facts of the instant case.
5. It was also pressed into service that the said decision has been doubted in CWP No. 3583 of 1986 by a Division Bench consisting of D.S.
Tewatia and M.R. Agnihotri, JJ and that this factor would also entitled the petitioner to have the writ petition admitted. The doubt expressed by the
Bench was:-
......Since this order of ours would raise certain amount of uncertainty in regard to the fact as to whether the Director Panchayats would have the
jurisdiction to decide the appeal as delegate of the Government against the order passed by his own delegate i.e. the Divisional Director/Joint
Director, it is desirable that the matter is set at rest at the earliest...
We again repeatingly observe that these observations do not fit in with the facts of the instant case.
6. Here, the appellate authority himself was no other than the Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, in the Department of Rural Development and
Panchayats and specifically his order is titled to have been passed exercising the powers of the government. Such power vested in the Joint
Secretary is beyond doubt. But a Standing Order dated May 10, 1988. passed by the Adviser to the Governor of Punjab Department of Rural
Development and Panchayats, has been placed on record to show hearing of appeals u/s 102(6) against orders made by the Director of
Panchayats appointed by the Government under the Act was to be done at the level of the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayats, and other appeals u/s 102(6) were to be disposed of at the level of the Joint Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayats. Now here, the aforesaid notification dated May 16, 1986, has also been placed on record to show that Shri Narinder Saroop was
Joint Director of Panchayats conferring on him all the powers, duties and functions of the Director under the Act. So the original order being of the
Joint Director, may be conferred with the powers of the Director of Panchayats, an appeal against his order lay under the Standing Orders dated
May 10.1988, to the Joint Secretary. Rural Development and Panchayats. The appellate order, Annexure P-4, was thus passed in the valid
exercise of jurisdiction.
7. The argument of the learned counsel that the Secretary to Government, Punjab, is also conferred the powers of the Director, and a fortiori the
Joint Secretary has been conferred the powers of the Joint Director and, therefore, an appeal could not lie, suffers from a basic fallacy, for an
officer may be conferred with more than one powers but the point arises that he must at one point of time be aware of what powers he is
exercising and whether he was competent to do so or not. Mr. P. Ram while disposing of the appeal was definitely conscious that he was
exercising the powers of the Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, and that he was sitting in
appeal against an order passed by the Joint Director, Panchayats, exercising the powers of the Director, Panchayats. The appellate function of the
Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, cannot be called a coordinate function with the Joint Director, Panchayats, on the supposition that the Joint
Director also stood vested with the powers of the Director or Joint Director, Panchayats. What needs to be avoided is that a man cannot sit in
appeal against his own order or that against an order of an officer coordinate in jurisdiction. We find nothing of the kind in this case, even closely
scrutinising the mechanics of it.
8. No other point has been urged.
9. Finding no merit in the petition, we dismiss the petition in iimine.