IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

CHARYANA, CHANDIGARH

C.W.P.No.4883 of 2006

Date of decision: 28.8.2008

Gram Panchayat, Shahpur

......Petitioner(s)

Versus

Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt Haryana

Development and Panchayat Department and Others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mz. Kirti Singh, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.4.

JASWANT SINGH,J

Petitioner-Gram Panchayat, Shahpur Block Bawal, District

Rewari (hereinafter to be referred as “Gram Panchayat”) has filed the

present writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 16.1.2006 (Annexure

P.4) passed by the Revisional Authority-respondent No.1 whereby the order

dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Rewari-respondent No.2 confirming the orders dated 20.6.2000 and

13.9.2000 (Annexures P.1 & P.2) passed by the B.D.P.O, Bawal, imposing a

recovery of Rs.62633.25/- upon Rattan Lal, Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram

Panchayat (respondent No.4) under Section 53(5) of the Haryana Panchayati

Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “1994 Act”), has been set aside.

Briefly, facts of the case are that Rattan Lal-respondent No.4

remained as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat during the term ending

August, 1995. A complaint was made in June, 1996 by some villager

against respondent No.4 for misappropriation of panchayat funds during his

C.W.P.No.4883 of 2006

#2#

tenure as Sarpanch. The inquiry was conducted by Additional Deputy

Commissioner, Rewari, who found that respondent No.4 had mis-

appropriated panchayat funds to the tune of Rs.62633.25/- on account of

fictitious work having been carried out in the village for the cleanliness and

repair of the lanes/roads as also construction of a nala from “Nehar” to the

village Johar. Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bawal issued a

notice dated 20.6.2002 (Annexure P.1) under Section 53 (2) of 1994 Act to

respondent No.4 for recovery of the loss of the aforesaid amount.

Thereafter, in continuation of the earlier notice dated 20.6.2002, another

notice dated 13.9.2000 (Annexure P.2) was issued. Respondent No.4 filed

an appeal under Section 53(5) of 1994 Act against the two notices dated

20.6.2000 and 13.9.2000 before the Appellate Authority-Deputy

Commissioner, Rewari (respondent No.2) on the ground that the B.D.P.O

had issued notices for the recoveries beyond the period of two years from

his ceasing to be Sarpanch, therefore, the initiation of recovery proceedings

are time barred. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide

order dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure P.3) by holding that the proceedings had

been initiated within two years of his ceasing to be a Sarpanch, as

prescribed under Section 53(5) of 1994 Act.

Aggrieved against the said order, respondent No.4 filed a

revision petition under Section 53(4) of 1994 Act before respondent No.1.

The Revisional Authority vide impugned order dated 16.1.2006 (Annexure

P.4) set aside the order dated 27.11.2002 of the Appellate Authority and

held that the proceedings under Section 53(5) of 1994 Act had been initiated

against Rattan Lal Sarpanch-respondent No.5 beyond the prescribed period

of two years. Hence the present petition by the Gram Panchayat.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

The sole question to be determined by us is whether the action

against respondent No.4-Sarpanch for initiating recovery proceedings to

recover Rs.62633.25/- as loss having been caused to the Gram Panchayat is

within the prescribed period under Section 53(5) of 1994 Act. Before

proceeding on the merits of the case, it is necessary to reproduce the

C.W.P.No.4883 of 2006

#3#

relevant Sections 53(2) and 53(5) of 1994 Act for ready reference, which

reads as un