Punjab-Haryana High Court
Isham Singh, Member, Gram Panchayat vs Deputy Commissioner And Ors. on 4 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)104PLR721
JUDGMENT
A.L. Bahri and N.K. Kapoor, JJ.
1. Ishamt Singh, Member, Gram Panchayat, Buchhi, Sub Tehsil Pundri, Distric Karnal, challenges in this writ petition show cause notice dated May 14, 1993, Annexure P-l, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal. respondent No. 1, as to why the petitioner should not be placed under suspension for not attending the meetings of the gram panchayat consecutively thrice. In Annexure P-l, show cause notice, firstly, petitioner as asked to explain as to why he did not sign the proceedings of the meeting of the gram panchayat held on October 8, l992, October 24, 1992 and December 7, 1992. Secondly, he was asked to explain as to why he did not attend the meetings of the gram panchayat held on December 7, 1992, 12-1-1993, 28-1-1993 28-2-1993 and 28-3-1993 after having received information of the three meetings consecutively. The petitioner filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice copy of which is Annexures P-2, inter alia, asserting that he had attended the meeting of December 7, 1992. With respect to other meetings, it was stated that be was not deliberately issued the agenda of the meeting Annexure P-3 is the agenda for the meeting held on December 7, 1993.
2. On notice of motion having been issued, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed written statement, inter alia, asserting that information of the three meetings consecutively which were not attended by the petitioner was given to him as per rules and the petitioner contravened the provisions of Section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act. Annexure R-l is the agenda for the meeting held on December 7, 1992. Annexure R-2 to R-6 are the agendas of meetings subsequently held of which information was given to the petitioner. At this stage, if may be stated that in some of these notices present petitioner has refused to receive the copy of the agenda.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Deputy Commissioner could not invoke jurisdiction while issuing show cause notice wilder the provision of Section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act- In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case reported as Ram Ditta Singh v. The Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur and Ors., (1968) 70 P. L. R. 341. After going through the aforesaid judgment, we are of the opinion that the ratio of this decision as such cannot be applied to the case in hand That was a case where the Deputy Commissioner had passed order of suspension under Section 02 of the Act without any enquiry being pending and thus such an order of suspension was quashed by the High Court While interpreting the scope of Section 102 of the Act, it was observed as under:-
"......it is only when the Government has ordered or started an enquiry under Sub section (2) against a Panch, that the Deputy Commissioner concerned has the power under Sub section (1) to suspend that Panch. He cannot suspend him in consequence of an enquiry not ordered or started by the Government under Sub-section (2)".
4. By issuing show cause notice only an opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner that he may explain as to why action under Section 102 of the Act should not be taken against him. No doubt, in the reply filed to the show cause notice, it has been sought to be explained by the petitioner that, in fact, some of the notice of the meetings were not served on him and that the reports made thereon of refusal are incorrect, but that is not for this Court to determine The Deputy Commissioner will decide this question independently on the material produced or to be produced before him. As far as interpretation of Section 102 of the Act is concerned, we are of the opinion that the order of Suspension can only be passed when any enquiry is ordered or is pending. Such a situation is yet to come in the present case. May be that the Deputy Commissioner accepts the plea of the petitioner as given in the reply to the show cause notice and he may not invoke jurisdiction to actually suspend the petitioner At this stage, it is not just and proper to further comment upon the subject. Notice Annexure P-l cannot be held to have been issued without jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner had, in fact, attended the meeting on December 7, 1992. we need not make any comment in this respect as in the written statement it is admitted that he did attend the aforesaid meeting but he did not sign the proceedings. As to what is the effect of non-signing of the proceedings of the meeting, again we need not comment upon; As and when any adverse order is passed on that account, the matter would be examined.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the gram Panchayat has passed a resolution earlier that meetings of the gram panchayat would be held on 7th and 28th of each month and the petitioner had been attanding such meetings or gone to the panchayat- ghar on these days and had been waiting. In our view, this is immaterial for the purposes of taking action under Section 102 of the Act, factually it is to be seen if the ground given under Section 102 of the Act is established or not. At this stage, such a question cannot be gone into by this Court.
7. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed as premature.