Back
RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Sukhwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the enquiry report dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) and report dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) submitted by the SDO, Panchayati Raj, Public Works, Samrala, District Ludhiana, whereby, it has been held that an amount of Rs.18,73,175/- is liable to be recovered from the petitioner and proposed action to be taken on the basis of the said report as the conducting of enquiry is totally against the provisions of Section 216 (4) of PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT (for short, 'the Act').
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner remained Sarpanch of the village Nagra, Block Samrala, District Ludhiana from the year 2008-2013. He submits that the petitioner discharged his duties in accordance with law and during this period no enquiry etc. was instituted against the petitioner on the allegation of embezzlement or misappropriation of funds. He submits that though there was a complaint filed by one Kuldeep Singh against the petitioner on the allegations of committing irregularities/embezzlement but no enquiry was conducted regarding the same, however, the petitioner was shocked to rece
The limitation for initiating recovery proceedings under Section 216(4) does not apply if the complaint was filed during the term of the officeholder.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice in administrative inquiries, quashing the recovery order due to jurisdictional flaws.
As per Rules 256 and 257 of 1947 Rules, enquiry ought to have been conducted by Chief Audit Officer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision-making process adopted by the respondents must comply with the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate of Section....
The court reaffirmed that principles of natural justice must be observed in inquiry processes, especially in cases of removal from office, while recognizing that proven guilt mitigates claims of proc....
The court affirmed that the District Magistrate has the authority to cease a Pradhan's powers pending inquiry, and that the preliminary inquiry process does not necessitate the Pradhan's involvement.
The six-month timeframe for concluding inquiries under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 is directory, not mandatory, allowing inquiri....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
