Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh Arya vs Satbir And Others on 22 April, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CR No.2747 of 2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.2747 of 2014
Date of Decision: 22.04.2014
Ranbir Singh Arya
..... Petitioner
Versus
Satbir and others ... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)
The petitioner was assigned duty to be a "Supervisory Adhikari/Supervisory Officer" by the order of the Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Election Officer (Panchayats), Jhajjar (P-3) in the Panchayat elections. In the Election Petition filed by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal cum Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar the petitioner, who is a Professor serving in Government College, Jhajjar was arrayed as respondent No.3 wrongly as "Returning/Polling Officer". By the order dated November 23, 2011 respondent No.1 has been declared as the winning candidate for the post of Panch of Gram Panchayat Mundahera, District Jhajjar in the elections held on June 6, 2010. A finding has been returned that the election result was declared by corrupt practices. The learned trial Court has made serious remarks on the conduct of the petitioner and the 4th respondent to the following effect:-
"The result of recounting of votes in the court completely falsifies it to be an Mittal Manju 2014.04.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.2747 of 2014 -2- omission. Rather proves it to be an act of grave misconduct on part of respondent No.3 as well as of respondent No.4. Let the notices of such kind of dereliction in duties of the polling returning officer concerned to be brought to be notice of the concerned Election Officer. The copy of the present judgment be forwarded to the Election Officer, to take appropriate action with intimation to this court. Copy of judgment be lso forwarded to Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar."
Besides, costs of Rs.1,000/- have been imposed on the petitioner. The order has been passed on the wrong assumption that the petitioner was the Returning Officer. There can be no doubt that the petitioner was not appointed as a Returning Officer and was assigned duties of a Supervisory Adhikari which is not holder of any office mentioned in the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 in connection with the conduct of elections as borne out by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (P-3).
Aggrieved by the strictures passed by the trial Court and imposition of costs, the petitioner is before this Court praying that the observations made against him by the trial Court order are without any basis and therefore deserve to be expunged.
I asked Mr. Khatri if the petitioner had appeared as a witness in the trial proceedings. He answered in the affirmative. The petitioner appeared as RW-5 and made the following statement in translation (produced by counsel from his papers not on record of the paperbook):-
"That the deponent was neither Polling Officer nor Returning Officer but was a Supervisor holding the supervision charge of two villages namely Birar and Mundahera."
He had clearly deposed that he was not the Returning Officer Incharge of the election process in the pocket in question but was only named a Supervisory Officer for two villages whose duty it was to supervise Mittal Manju 2014.04.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.2747 of 2014 -3- the carriage of ballot boxes from booths to the office of the Returning Officer for counting under supervision of the latter. He was not involved in the process of counting of votes nor was saddled with any duty to do so by the competent authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar. He had no role to play in the counting of votes.
In view of the factual position obtaining with respect to the limited duty assigned to the petitioner, comments made by the learned trial Judge were not called for. It appears that the trial Judge did not read the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar and the testimony of the petitioner appearing as RW-5 from where it could be known that he was not the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer was respondent No 4.
Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the adverse remarks recorded by the trial Judge against the petitioner are not justified and the same are accordingly expunged. The order imposing costs on the petitioner is consequently nullified.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 22.04.2014 manju Mittal Manju 2014.04.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh