Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Ramkali vs Deputy Commissioner on 21 November, 2008
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Jaswant Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP NO.11105 of 2008
Date of Decision:21.11.2008.
Smt.Ramkali
..........Petitioner.
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and others.
..........Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.
Present: Mr.Chanakya Pandit,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sudhir Makkar,Senior DAG Haryana for respondents 1 & 2.
Mr.Maharaj Kumar,Advocate for respondent no.3.
JASWANT SINGH,J.
The petitioner, an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Harsinghpura, Block Gharaunda, District Karnal, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 4.4.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Karnal-respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner has been suspended from the office of Sarpanch and the appellate order dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure P/6) passed by The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, whereby her appeal filed against the said order of suspension has been dismissed.
Briefly stated, the facts are that an FIR No. 413 dated 4.12.2007 under Sections 409, 420,465,467,468,471, 506 IPC was registered on the complaint of one Santro Devi, Panch of Village Harsinghpura, against the CWP NO.11105 of 2008 2 petitioner and the Panchayat Secretary. The allegation against the petitioner is that after 31.3.2007, when her strength in the Panchayat had been reduced to a minority, she, in connivance with the Panchayat Secretary passed eight resolutions in succession by putting/ forging the thumb impressions of the complainant and withdrew the funds of Panchayat for her personal use, as no alleged work as shown in the said resolutions was ever got done by the petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner had manhandled Smt.Santro Devi, complainant and also threatened her with dire consequences if she ever complained about the forging of her signatures by the petitioner. Due to the allegations in the said FIR, respondent no.1 issued a show cause notice dated 10.3.2008 under Section 51(1)(a) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act,1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for her suspension from the office of Sarpanch. Petitioner filed her reply on 27.3.2008. After considering the reply, respondent no.1 formed an opinion that the petitioner was involved in a criminal offence, which involved moral turpitude and therefore suspended her from the office of Sarpanch vide order dated 4.4.2008 (Annexure P/1). Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed an appeal before respondent no.2 under Section 51(5) of the Act, which was dismissed vide order dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure P/6). Hence the present writ petition.
Respondents, upon notice, chose not to file any reply.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Karnal-respondent no.1 has passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch in a mechanical manner on account of registration of an FIR against her without appreciating the veracity or gravity of the allegations in CWP NO.11105 of 2008 3 the said FIR and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents have argued that nature of the criminal offences, in which the petitioner is involved, are of serious nature, in which challan has already been presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction and the case is now fixed for framing of the charges and therefore, it cannot be said that the competent authority has wrongly exercised its powers under Section 51(1)(a) of the Act.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record we find no merit in the present writ petition.
Before proceeding in the matter, it would be relevant to extract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 51 of the Act, which reads as under:-
"51.Suspension and removal of a Sarpanch or Panch (1) The Director or the Deputy Commissioner concerned may, suspend any Sarpanch or Panch as the case may be,-
(a) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial, if in the opinion of the Director, or Deputy Commissioner's concerned the charge made or proceeding taken against him, is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character,
(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
A perusal of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 51 of the Act, reproduced above, discloses that the Deputy Commissioner can suspend any Sarpanch where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial, if in his opinion the charge made or CWP NO.11105 of 2008 4 proceedings taken against the Sarpanch are likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or moral turpitude or defect of character.
In the present case the petitioner is involved in an FIR in which after investigation challan has been presented and the case is at the stage of framing of charge. The allegation against the petitioner is that she has forged signatures of another Panch so as to get successive resolutions of the Panchayat passed, wherein her strength otherwise was in minority, and withdrew Panchayat funds which were misappropriated by her.
It is not disputed that the case against the petitioner was registered only after getting the forged thumb impressions examined from Forensic Science Laboratory. It is also not disputed that the petitioner after the registration of the FIR under Sections 409, 420,465,467,468,471, 506 IPC was arrested and remained in custody before she was granted bail. It also cannot be disputed that forgery of a public document to mis-appropriate the public funds is a serious charge and one of the grounds for removal from the office of Sarpanch. It also cannot be disputed that prior to the passing of the order of suspension, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal- respondent no.1 had issued show cause notice to her and after considering her reply formed an opinion that the allegations against the petitioner constituted criminal offence involving moral-turpitude and would embarrass her in discharge of her duties. Therefore, it cannot be, by any stretch of reasoning, said that the competent authority had passed the impugned orders in a mechanical manner. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the competent authority has duly applied its mind to relevant material on record. Therefore, no fault can be found with the powers exercised by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 51(1)(a) of CWP NO.11105 of 2008 5 the Act, as also by the appellate authority while dismissing her appeal.
For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed.
No costs.
(Jaswant Singh)
Judge
21.11.2008. (Satish Kumar Mittal)
joshi Judge