Sarpanch--Inquiry against--No inquiry can be initiated against the petitioner after two years of expiry of his tem as a Sarpanch.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

1. The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of general panchayat elections held in the month of December, 1994, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Rai, District Sonepat, under the provisions of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). Having successfully completed, his term expired in the month of March, 2000 when fresh elections were field in the village and the seat of office of Sarpanch was reserved for ladies.

2. It was claimed that during his tenure as Sarpanch, Subha Chand and others filed a complaint against him on 7.6.1999 before the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, (respondent No.2), inter-alia on the grounds that he (petitioner) carried out the development work in the village without approval and sanction from the competent authority and without following the due procedure. Thus, he was stated to have mis-appropriated the funds of the Gram Panchayat. The respondent No.2 sent the complaint to SDO (C) Sonepat (respondent No.3), who appointed the BDPO, Rai as Enquiry Officer and asked him to submit his report on the complaint, vide letter dated 14.10.1999 (Annexure P1). The BDPO conducted a detailed inquiry on the complaint, recorded the statements of the complainants, petitioner and other persons, inspected the spot and record and submitted the inquiry report dated 18.10.1999 (Annexure P2) exonerating the petitioner from the allegations alleged against him.

3. Sequelly, the Enquiry Officer (BDPO) submitted his report (Annexure P2) to the SDO (C) (respondent No.3), who accepted the report and found the allegations in the complaint alleged against the petitioner, to be false and baseless and sent his report dated 30.11.1999 (Annexure P3) to the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2) in this regard.

4. Thereafter, respondent No,2 again asked respondent No.3 to examine the complaint in regard to work-wise details-Respondent No.3 re-examined the matter, again reiterated and came to the conclusion that the complaint has been filed by the complainants due to party faction, they have not submitted any evidence in support of the allegations and it was recommended that the present complaint be consigned to the records, vide report dated 9.2.2000 (Annexure P4).

5. As strange as it may seem, but respondent No.3 took a somersault and again started inquiry on the same complaint and issued notice dated (Annexure P5) to the petitioner after more than five years of filing the complaint in this regard. Although, the petitioner replied to the notice intimating that all the allegations levelled against him have already been inquired into and were found to be false and even otherwise, no inquiry can be initiated against him under section 53(5) of the Act but the same was not dropped.

6. In this manner, the petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the initiation of second inquiry into the same charges, by invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, on the grounds that the second inquiry cannot be initiated once the same set of allegations were found to be false by respondent No.3. That too, the inquiry is barred after the expiry of his term of Sarpanch as contemplated under section 53(5) of the Act.

7. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed their written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition and locus standi of the petitioner. According to the respondents that as the inquiry was not finalized, therefore, section 53 did not debar the holding of an inquiry. However, the factual matrix of holding the first inquiry by respondent No.3 was admitted. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations cont