IMPORTANT POINT
.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The petitioner herein has been removed from the office of the Sarpanch by the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad vide order dated 26.03.2018 after recording a finding that the petitioner does not possess the requisite educational qualification as required under the Haryana Panchyati Raj Act, 1994.

2. The petitioner along with the nomination papers filed a certificate allegedly issued by SLD inter-college, Sandhan, Meerut to claim that he is class 8th passed. On complaint being received, the competent authority directed the District Development and Panchayat Officer to conduct an enquiry. It is not in dispute that the District Development and Panchayat Officer issued notice to the petitioner and statement of the petitioner was recorded on 22.03.2016. The petitioner was again called upon to appear along with the original educational qualification certificate. He produced the original educational qualification certificate. On production of the original qualification certificate, letters were written to the concerned principal of the educational institution for verification. The District Education Officer, Meerut and Principal of the institution replied that the certificate produced by the petitioner is fake and does not bear the signatures of the Principal. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the competent authority. On receipt of enquiry report, the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner vide order dated 22.09.2016. The petitioner filed a reply to the show-cause notice and claimed that since a civil suit and an election petition are pending, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. During the course of arguments before the Deputy Commissioner, a contention was raised that the petitioner has not been supplied the relevant documents. The Deputy Commissioner at page-73 of the paper book noted zimni order dated 16.11.2017 wherein it was specifically recorded that the document i.e. copy of the report of the Education Department, UP as requested by learned counsel for the petitioner has been supplied and he is ready for arguments.

3. The Deputy Commissioner after noticing the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner and the complainant and the report submitted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer passed the order in exercise of powers given under Section 51(3)(b) read with Section 177(1) (a) and Section 175(v) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat.

4. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Principal Secretary exercising the powers of the Government vide order Annexure P-11 at page-83. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the caveator at length.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the authorities. He has further submitted that adequate opportunity was not granted to the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings. He further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has referred to this enquiry as a preliminary enquiry and therefore, regular enquiry was required to be held before forming any final opinion. He further submitted that the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer were not supplied.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that neither in the reply to the show-cause notice nor before the Principal Secretary, the petitioner did not raise these contentions/submissions and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise these points for the first time in the writ petition.

8. As far as first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be noted that the learned Enquiry Officer initially directed the petitioner to produce the alleged original certificate is