Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1719 (PNJ)

Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab

2011-09-09

ALOK SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh, J.: (Oral) - Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Balbir Singh, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.7. 2. Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, vide order dated 27.4.2011 has directed the removal of respondent No.7 from the post of Sarpanch and declared respondent No.7 disqualified for contesting elections of the Panchayat for the next five years on the ground that by digging the earth from khasra No.29//9(7-2), respondent No.7 has caused financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,63,000/- to the Panchayat. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, dated 27.4.2011, respondent No.7 preferred appeal No.194 of 2011 before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Chandigarh, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 18.7.2011 (Annexure P-10). Case of respondent No.7 is that level of land of khasra No.29//9(7-2) was higher, therefore, there used to be water logging in the neighbouring high school; high school made request to the Panchayat to level the land so that there may not be water logging in the school and students of the school may not suffer adversely. On the request of the school, a resolution was passed on 24.1.2010 to the effect that after digging the earth from khasra No.29//9 (7-2), level of the land be decreased and soil removed after digging should be laid down in the school so that level of the school can rise. Accordingly, digging was made on the spot and soil removed after digging was laid down in the school thereby making the level of the land and school same to avoid water logging in the school. Learned Financial Commissioner in the impugned order has accepted the version of respondent No.7 and observed that earlier, before digging, this land was auctioned for Rs.1,18,000/- and after levelling by digging and removing the soil it was auctioned for Rs.3,52,000/-, therefore, there is no question of financial loss to the Panchayat. 3. On being asked repeatedly, learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to reply as to whether after digging earth from the spot soil was sold by respondent No.7 or was misused for her own personal use. 3. On being asked repeatedly, learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to reply as to whether after digging earth from the spot soil was sold by respondent No.7 or was misused for her own personal use. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to point out any material on record to show that the earth dug by respondent No.7 either sold or was misused for her own personal use. 4. After having gone through the enquiry report, I failed to find out any finding to the effect that after digging the earth, it was sold by the Sarpanch or has been illegally misused for her own personal purposes. Digging the earth for leveling the land to avoid water logging in the school will not amount to any gross mis-conduct warranting removal or disqualification of respondent No.7. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order whereby respondent No.7 was not held guilty for digging earth and leveling the land to avoid water logging in the school. 5. Present petition seems to be outcome of political rivalry. It has come to the notice of this Court that so many frivolous petitions are filed against elected Panches/Sarpanches on frivolous grounds, which should be discouraged by imposing exemplary cost. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that no cost may be imposed and he may be permitted to withdraw this petition. 8. Dismissed as withdrawn.