Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 770 (PNJ)

Gurmukh Singh v. State of Punjab

2011-03-09

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2011
JUDGMENT MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral) - Concisely, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat election, held in the month of May, 2008, petitioner was first elected as Panch and, thereafter, was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Ibrahimpur, Block Bhunerheri, District Patiala, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein after to be referred as “the Act”). 2. The petitioner claimed that one Gurdial Singh (respondent No. 5) filed a complaint against him with the allegations that he is in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land, bearing Khasra No. 264 (6-0) bigha. In the wake of the complaint and preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was suspended on 11.11.2008 and regular enquiry was ordered to be conducted. After completion of the enquiry, the District Development and Panchayat Officer-respondent No. 4 (for brevity “the D.D.P.O”), submitted his report dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure P1) to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No. 2 (for brevity “the Director”) exonerating the petitioner from the charges alleged against him. However, the report (Annexure P1) did not find favour and the Director entrusted the indicated enquiry to Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala-respondent No. 3. Having completed the regular enquiry, respondent No. 3 submitted his enquiry report dated 06.04.2010. On the basis of which, the Director removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, vide impugned order dated 28.05.2010/04.06.2010 (Annexure P2). 3. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P2), petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh-respondent No. 1 (for short “Appellate Authority”), by way of impugned order dated 06.09.2010 (Annexure P3). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P2 & P3), invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted, in this regard. 6. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted, in this regard. 6. As is evident from the record, that the regular enquiry was initially assigned to the DDPO. After completion of the enquiry, the DDPO submitted his report dated 09.09.2009 (Annexure P1) wherein he has concluded that the allegations against the petitioner, contained in the complaint were not proved. The Director (respondent No. 2) just ignored the report of the DDPO and entrusted the enquiry to respondent No. 3, who conducted a fresh enquiry and submitted his report dated 06.04.2010. Taking the cognizance of the second enquiry report of respondent No. 3, the Director removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, vide impugned order (Annexure P2), without discussing or considering the enquiry report (Annexure P1) of the DDPO. 7. The perusal of the record would reveal that the DDPO in his enquiry report (Annexure P1) appears to have recorded valid reasons and exonerated the petitioner but it was just ignored by the Director with impunity. If the Director was not satisfied with the first enquiry report (Annexure P1) of the DDPO then he ought to have recorded a valid reasons in ignoring the first report. Moreover, the Director has just reproduced and relied upon the subsequent second enquiry report in a routine manner and without discussing the merits and demerits of both the enquiry reports. Mainly, he was influenced by the observation of this Court, contained in the order dated 21.04.2009, passed in CWP No. 5930 of 2009, in a separate suspension matter of the petitioner. The same very mistake was repeated by the Appellate Authority. What is not disputed here, is that the petitioner (Sarpanch) can only be removed on the grounds contemplated in the Act and not otherwise. 8. Not only that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the Director as well as the Appellate Authority, was that as at some point of time, son of the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land, therefore, the petitioner is liable to be removed from the post of Sarpanch. 9. 8. Not only that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the Director as well as the Appellate Authority, was that as at some point of time, son of the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land, therefore, the petitioner is liable to be removed from the post of Sarpanch. 9. Meaning thereby, as to (i) whether the authorities under the Act could just ignore the first enquiry report (Annexure P1) of the DDPO or can straightway accept the second enquiry report, without assigning any cogent reason?; (ii) whether petitioner or his son were found to be in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land & (iii) whether petitioner can be removed from the post of Sarpanch on account of illegal possession of his son over the Gram Panchayat land?, inter alia, were the moot points, to be decided by the authorities under the Act. These vital aspects of the matter have just been ignored with impunity by the Director as well as Appellate Authority. That means, the impugned order (Annexure P2) of the Director is non-speaking and non reasoned order and the same very mistake was repeated by the Appellate Authority (respondent No.1) in the impugned order (Annexure P3) inculcating and perpetuating injustice to the petitioner. 10. Sequelly, the authorities below ought to have discussed the material on record and were legally required to record valid reasons for arriving at a right conclusions, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in the right perspective. Such statutory authorities, exercising the powers under the Act, should act independently and every action of such authority must be informed by reasons. The order must be fair clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the democratic valuable rights of the parties are involved. The same are totally lacking in the impugned orders (Anneuxres P2 & P3), in this relevant connection. 11. The order must be fair clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the democratic valuable rights of the parties are involved. The same are totally lacking in the impugned orders (Anneuxres P2 & P3), in this relevant connection. 11. Exhibiting the importance of passing speaking and reasoned order, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240 has held (para 8) as under : - “The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.” 12. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments mutatis-mutandis is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 13. Thus, seen from any angle, the impugned orders (Annexure P2 & P3) cannot legally be maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. To me, interest of justice would be sub-served if the matter is remanded back to the Director for its fresh decision, in this relevant connection. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the case before the Director, the writ petition is accepted. The impugned orders (Annexures P2 & P3) are hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the Director (respondent No. 2) to decide the matter afresh, after affording the adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties by passing a speaking order, in view of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. 15. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Director (respondent No.2) on 04.04.2011 for further proceedings. Petition Allowed.