Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sunita Devi vs Financial Commissioner And Secretary ... on 5 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)122PLR32
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. In this writ petition, challenge is to order dated 31st December, 1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar whereby petitioner has been removed from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Daryapur in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner has also been disqualified for contesting election for a period of 6 years. Challenge is also to order dated 18th August, 1998 passed by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Haryana Development and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 31st December, 1997 has been dismissed.
2. In brief, the facts are that in the year 1994 petitioner was elected as Woman Harijan Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Daryapur. On 19th June, 1995, a complaint was made against the petitioner to the effect that she took a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the liquor contractor for passing a resolution dated 3rd May, 1995 vide which Gram Panchayat, Daryapur granted consent to the office of Excise and Taxation for opening a liquor vend in the village. On the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the S.D.O. (Civil), Bahadurgarh and thereafter show cause notice dated 25th August, 1995 was issued to the petitioner as to why a regular enquiry be not held and she be not suspended during the pendency of the enquiry. Petitioner submitted detailed reply but respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and decided to hold a regular enquiry only in regard to one charge i.e. taking of Rs. 2,50,000/- by the petitioner for opening a liquor vend in the village. S.D.O. (Civil), Jhajjar was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer conducted his enquiry and in his report dated 20th August, 1997 held the petitioner guilty of charge levelled against her. On the basis of the enquiry report, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 31st December, 1997 ordered removal of petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Daryapur and she has further been disqualified to contest election of Gram Panchayat for six years. Against order dated 31st December, 1997, petitioner filed appeal before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh but the same too was dismissed on 18th August, 1998. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the enquiry, as many as nine witnesses were examined by the complainant and eight witnesses were examined by the petitioner but the Inquiry Officer has failed to take into consideration the evidence led by the parties. It was contended that the Inquiry Officer based his enquiry report on the alleged admission of the petitioner which was not part of the evidence led in the regular inquiry but alleged to have been made during the course of preliminary enquiry. Petitioner has contended that the Inquiry Officer did not consider at all the oral and documentary evidence led by the petitioner. It is contended that this fact is clear from the perusal of the enquiry report.
4. Upon notice of the writ petition, respondents in their written statement, have admitted that the petitioner examined eight witnesses and likewise nine witnesses were examined by the complainant. Respondents, however, stated that the inquiry officer has held the petitioner guilty of the charge after appreciating the evidence of the parties. It is also contended that order passed against the petitioner being legal and valid are not liable to be interferred with.
5. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
6. Sub-section (3)(e) of Section 51 of the Act provides that if Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch or the Panch is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties and his continuance in the office is undesirable in the public interest, he may be removed from the office by an order of the Deputy Commissioner. Sub-section (3) provides that before an order in this regard is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, enquiry shall be held after giving an opportunity of being heard to the delinquent as to why order to remove him from the office be not passed against him. In this case, on the basis of preliminary enquiry and the explanation submitted by the petitioner against show cause notice, respondent No. 2 decided to hold regular enquiry and vide order dated 15th February, 1996, S.D.O. (Civil), Jhajjar was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant in order to prove the allegation against the petitioner, examined as many as nine witnesses and they were cross-examined at length by counsel for the petitioners. Petitioner also examined eight witnesses in support of her defence and they too were thoroughly cross-examined by the complainant. Perusal of enquiry report dated 20th August, 1997, Annexure P-5 shows that the Inquiry Officer has taken into account only the statements made by the complainant and the petitioner but has not taken into consideration the statements made by other witnesses. In the concluding paragraph of his report, the Inquiry Officer has recorded as under:-
"After hearing the arguments of learned counsel of both the sides and perusal of the record, I have reached to the conclusion that the statement given by Smt. Sunita Devi in this Court does not appear to be based on truth because more than 2 years have expired from the date of incident. Thus, Smt. Sunita Devi is denying her previous statement. This fact cannot be accepted that S.D.O. (Civil) Bahadurgarh who recorded the statement did not record the same correctly. As far as the question of Bank Account is concerned, it is very difficult to trace the Bank Account of a person. It is also possible that the aforesaid amount was not deposited in the Bank at all. Thus, by accepting the statement of Smt. Sunita Devi made by her before S.D.O. (Civil), Bahadurgarh as correct, I have reached to the conclusion that Smt. Sunita Devi took Rs. 2,50,000/- from the liquor contractor which she did not spend for the development work of the village. In this way, she has misused her office."
7. On receipt of the enquiry report, show cause notice dated 24th September, 1997 along with a copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and she was asked to explain as to why she be not removed from the post of Sarpanch under Section 51(3) of the Act. Petitioner, in her reply dated 29th September, 1997, submitted that she is an illiterate lady and conspiracy has been hatched against her by Satbir Singh Panch. She submitted that Satbir Singh, Panch was a member of the Panchayat earlier and is a practicing lawyer in Delhi High Court. She said that Satbir Singh got recorded her statement to the Reader of the S.D.O. (Civil), Bahadurgarh and in good faith, she put her signatures on the said statement. She further submitted that she is not aware as to whether Satbir Singh got recorded that she had received Rs. 2,50,000/- from the liquor contractor. She submitted that she never took any amount from the liquor contractor. She also submitted that the complainant has alleged in the complaint that Ram Chander had given Rs. 2,50,000/- whereas there is no partner with the name Ram Chander in the Firm M/s Sanjay and Company. Respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. He, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Sub-sections(3) and (4) of Section 51 of the Act not only ordered removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch but also disqualified her from contesting the election for a period of six years. Perusal of order dated 31st December, 1997 passed by respondent No. 2 shows that he too did not discuss any evidence which the parties had led before the Inquiry Officer but only stated that "on the basis of material on record and the reply of the Sarpanch dated 29th September, 1997, I am satisfied that it is not desirable in public interest to keep her as Sarpanch Daryapur." In appeal, the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department affirmed the order of respondent No. 2 by saying that the enquiry report is based on evidence and the plea of the petitioner that the admission of the petitioner was recorded wrongly by the S.D.O. (Civil), Bahadurgarh during the course of preliminary enquiry is not enough to exonerate her.
8. Law is well settled that the High Court in writ proceedings can interfere only where the impugned findings by the Tribunals are not supported by any evidence or where the conclusions based on such evidence are so arbitrary and unwarranted that no reasonable person would arrive at that conclusion and so also a finding is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence. In this case, perusal of the enquiry report shows that the Inquiry Officer has failed to apply his mind to the evidence led by the parties. He has not assigned any single reason that the evidence adduced by the petitioner is not trustworthy. The Inquiry Officer has also failed to deal with the objection of the petitioner that the alleged admission made by her never formed part of record of regular enquiry nor the same was proved in accordance with law. Order dated 31st December, 1997 passed by respondent No. 2 gives no indication that apart from taking into consideration the enquiry report, he took into consideration any other evidence brought on record by the parties. In fact, reading of the order shows that he failed to advert to the statements of the witnesses which the petitioner and the complainant had examined before the Inquiry Officer. The charge against the petitioner in this case being very serious i.e. taking of bribe of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the liquor contractor and if proved, is likely to cause stigma and, therefore, enquiry to go into such a charge was to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The minimum expectation is that the Inquiry Officer must consider the entire evidence. If the entire evidence is considered, then the Court may not enter into adequacy, then it cannot be said to be an enquiry report at all. In my view, the orders passed on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer are not sustainable in law.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and orders dated 31st December, 1997 and 18th August, 1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar and the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh, respectively shall stand quashed with liberty to respondent No. 2 pass orders afresh in accordance with law. It is further made clear that while passing order, respondent No. 2 shall take into consideration the entire evidence led by the parties before the Inquiry Officer and shall pass a speaking order. He shall make every endeavour to pass order within one month from the date of appearance before him by the parties. No costs.
10. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar on 1st March, 1999.