Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 435 (HP)

JARAM SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2005-11-23

K.C.SOOD, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2005
JUDGEMENT K C Sood J, (Oral).: CMP No. 2030 of 2005. Infructuous. CWP No. 1052 of 2005. Under challenge, in this petition, is the order of the Secretary (Panchayati Raj) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated April 30, 2005 (Annexure-16/T) whereby the petitioner Jaram Singh has been removed as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kamnala, Development Block, Nurpur in District Kangra. He has further been disqualified, for a period of six years from contesting the election to the post of Panchayat under Section 146 (2) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. 2. The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Kamnala in the year 2000. Some allegations of mis-utilization of the funds and embezzlement were received against him. These allegations were enquired into by the District Panchayat Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala. A show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. His reply was not found satisfactory by the District Panchayat Office. A notice dated March 22, 2005 Annexure-P-14/T was served upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed under Section 146 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act. inquiry Report was also sent also with the show cause notice. The Competent Authority, Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the Department of Panchayati Raj, considered the reply and passed the impugned orders. 3. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is a non-speaking inasmuch as the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered at all. Learned Advocate General would submit that the impugned order was passed by the competent Authority after due consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner. 4. We find that the impugned order though runs in three pages only give gist of the inquiry report. There is not a word, not a whisper about the contentions raised in the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner. The relevant part of the impugned order reads: "...As such, after considering the Inquiry report, financial irregularities and mis-utilization of Rs.51,571,65, this office vide its even -No, order dated 22.3.2005 has issued a show cause notice for his removal from the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, to Shri Jaram Singh, Pradhan (suspended) Gram Panchayat-Kamnala and he was given 15 days time to give his clarification. That the Government is not satisfied with the reply of Shri Jaram Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kamnala to the show cause notice, because, the reply is not based upon facts. It has been found to be appropriate to remove Shri Jaram Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kamnala from the post of Pardhan, Gram Panchayat in view of the financial irregularities, misconduct in discharge of duties, in exercise of powers under Section 146(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Therefore, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 146(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 removes Shri Jaram Singh, Pradhan (suspended) Gram Panchayat Kamnala, Development Block, Nurpur, District Kangra for his above conduct with immediate effect and he is debarred from contesting any election to the post of Panchayat for a term of 6 years under Section 146(2) of the Act. By order. Secretary (Panchayati Raj) Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2". 5. A perusal of the order noticed above, clearly shows that there is no discussion regarding the submissions made by the petitioner in his reply. There is nothing in the order which may indicate that there was any objective consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner. What the order noticed is that the reply filed by the petitioner was not satisfactory as it was not based upon facts. There is no indication as to which facts, relied upon by the petitioner in his reply were incorrect. The order being bereft of reasons, is not sustainable in law. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated April 30, 2005 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Competent Authority to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner along with other relevant material. In view of the impending election to the Panchayats, it is directed that the petitioner shall appeal before the Secretary Panchayati Raj, H.P. on November 25, 2005 at 2.00 P.M. The competent Authority shall hear the petitioner and thereafter pass speaking orders, as indicated above on or before November 29, 2005. This writ petition is disposed of in above terms. CMP No. 2029 of 2005. These CMPs do not survive in view of the disposal of the writ petition. Copy Dasti.