The limitation for initiating recovery proceedings under Section 216(4) does not apply if the complaint was filed during the term of the officeholder.

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 receive the notice dated 25.01.2018 from the SDO(PR), Samrala, wherein, he was asked for sending the complete record, mustroll, MB, and assessment for the year 2008 to 2013 i.e. the tenure during which the petitioner worked as Sarpanch of the village. He submits that notice issued is totally in violation of provisions of Section 216 (4) of the Act and initiation of the enquiry in the year 2018 after five years from the date the petitioner ceased to be the Sarpanch, is equally violative of Section 216 (4) of the Act. He submits that the impugned report dated 09.02.2018 was submitted by the SDO (PR), Samrala to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ludhiana, wherein, it was illegally held that an amount of Rs.15,31,261/- was liable to be recovered from the petitioner, which is totally against the settled principles of law being violative of Section 216 (4) of the Act. He submits that another enquiry dated 06.07.2018 was conducted by the SDO (PR) on the complaint filed by Kuldeep Singh, wherein, it has been held that the petitioner had committed embezzlement of Rs.18,73,175/-. He submits that the petitioner filed an application dated 09.07.2018 are specifically praying that the enquiry reports dated 09.02.2018 and 06.07.2018, totally malafide and being violative of Section 216 (4) of the Act, do not have any sanctity under the law and thus, deserves to be set aside. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Gurdial Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2013(1) RCR (Civil) 139 and judgments of Single Bench of this Court in CWP-9618-2014 titled as Sharda Kumari v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 13.02.2017 and in Ram Kanwar, Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rai v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 436.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner worked as Sarpanch of the village for the period 2008-2013. He submits that the complaint dated 15.03.2010 against the petitioner was filed by one Kuldeep Singh for committing various irregularities and misappropriation of money. He submits that the complaint was filed against the petitioner when he was working as Sarpanch of the village. He submits that during his