The Deputy Commissioner had the authority to order the removal of the petitioner under Section 51(3)(b) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification required for the position of Sarpanch.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 29.10.2018 and 23.06.2021/25.06.2021.

2. Some facts are required to be noticed. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat village Ludas, Tehsil and District Hisar, in the general election held in the year 2016. The tenure of the petitioner has already come to an end. The petitioner while filing nomination paper claimed that he has passed matriculation examination from Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, (in short 'the Board') in the year 1989. On a complaint submitted by one Sukhbir son of Godhu Ram, the then Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, directed that a preliminary inquiry be held. The Law Officer (Panchayat) held the preliminary inquiry. During the inquiry, the District Education Officer, Hisar, after verification, sent a report vide his communication dated 16.01.2017 informing the inquiry officer on the basis of information provided by the Controller of Exams, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, that the result of serial No.376 to 447 of the year 1989 has been cancelled subject to final decision of the Board. The inquiry officer on the basis of the aforesaid information submitted a report. On the basis of the aforesaid inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to file response. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore, the petitioner was issued show cause notice under Section 51(3)(c) read with Section 177 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, (in short 'the 1994 Act') and granted an opportunity of hearing by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar. During the hearing, the petitioner was directed to produce the final decision taken by the Board. The Deputy Commissioner also called for the information. Vide an e-mail dated 06.08.2018, the Board informed that vide resolution No.9 dated 20.09.2017, the result of students from serial No.376 to 447 of the year 1989 stands cancelled. Even thereafter the petitioner was granted one more opportunity. The Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the aforesaid report found that the petitioner was not qualified to be elected as a Sarpanch and hence, ordered his removal in the exercise of power under Section 51(3)(b) of the 1994 Act. The petitioner filed an appeal which has also been dismissed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department, vide an order dated 23.06.2021.

3. The petitioner assails the correctness of the order dated 23.06.2021.

4. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and with his able assistance perused the paper book.

5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is without jurisdiction as the petitioner could not be removed from the post of Sarpanch except by the Election Tribunal in an election petition filed under Section 176 of the Act. He contends that the Deputy Commissioner could not exercise the powers to remove the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch under Section 51. In support thereof, learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, titled as Lal Chand Vs State of Haryana, (1998) 3 RCR(Civ) 255 (FB).

6. This Court has considered the submission, however, find no merit therein. Before this Bench proceed to analyse the arguments of learned counsel, it becomes important to note Sections 51 and 176 of the 1994 Act, which is extracted as under:-

Section 51

(1) The Director or the Deputy Commissioner concerned may, suspend any Sarpanch 1[* * * * ] or Panch, as the case may be,--

(a) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial, if in the opinion of the Director or Deputy Commissioners concerned the charge made or proceeding taken against him, is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral-turpitude or defect of character ;

(b) during