The delegation of powers by the Chief Executive Officer to the Panchayat Extension Officer to conduct the inquiry was invalid, and the petitioner was prejudiced by the non-cross examination of material witnesses and the lack of opportunity to defend himself.

1. Petitioner Purna Ram was a duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sardi Tehsil Ladnu District Nagaur. Earlier he was elected as Sarpanch of this panchayat in the year 1958 to 1962, 1966 and 1978 to 1988. Due to political rivalry one Bhanwarlal son of Chunnilal submitted a complaint against him before the respondents wherein he alleged some irregularities against the petitioner. It was also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had misused his office of Sarpanch and committed several irregularities in construction work and also received money from his and different persons for the construction work as well as in purchasing fodder but the same amount was not deposited in the panchayat account. Thus according to complaint the petitioner had misappropriated panchayat fund. On this complaint without any preliminary inquiry respondents prepared charges against the petitioner and called for his explanation by letter dated 29.11.96. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Without considering same an order was issued to hold inquiry which is Anx.3 on record. In pursuance of the order dated 28.12.96 respondent No.2, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur was appointed as inquiry officer. Chief Executive Officer, Nagaur issued a registered letter to the petitioner on 21.7.97 (Anx.4) and the petitioner appeared before her and sought time to submit his reply. The date was fixed as 28.8.97. But on that date the Chief Executive Officer was on leave. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 19.9.97. On 19.9.97 again the case was adjourned and the respondents fixed next date as 15.10.97 for calling witnesses No.1 to 19 from complainant side. On 15.10.97 the petitioner presented himself before the respondent's office prior to her presence at 10.30 a.m. In absence of the petitioner the respondent No.2 recorded statement of three witnesses viz. Jasraj, Nandlal and Man Singh. The petitioner requested the respondent that he wanted to cross examine them but no time was allowed and respondent did not recall these witnesses. Further more, the Chief Executive Office herself was not present when petitioner appeared and next date was fixed as 24.10.1997. Different dates were further given in the inquiry and on 18.11.1997 respondent Chief Executive Officer passed an order for recording statements and taking reply of the petitioner on 24.11.1997 at camp Sardi. On 24.11.97 the Chief Executive Officer could not reach at village Sardi and no further date was fixed. Neither any information was given to the petitioner. In those days the news was that the mother-in-law of the Chief Executive Officer had expired, therefore, she had gone on leave. Thereafter no specific date was fixed for recording of statements of other witnesses and no reply was taken and no statements of the petitioner's witnesses were recorded by the respondents.

2. Respondent Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur appointed another inquiry officer namely Panchayat Extension Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur Shri Nathu Lal Sharma who initiated the inquiry and recorded statements of many witnesses and thereafter submitted inquiry report. A copy of the enquiry report together the statements of the witnesses Anx.6 on record. The Panchayat Extension Officer also submitted a list of the witnesses whose statements were recorded by him on 27.12.1997. The petitioner also submitted an application before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad requesting therein that he should be allowed to submit his reply and further requesting for corss examination of witnesses Jasraj, Nandlal and Man Singh. But no opportunity was given. However, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad did not hold proper inquiry and yet submitted inquiry report to the State Government. The State Government sent a letter to the petitioner with the inquiry report on 28.3.98 holding him guilty of misconduct to show cause. The petitioner approached the State Government on 24.4.98 and requested for ins