Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 867 (HP)

Kahan Singh v. State of HP

2012-11-22

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. A resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat, Jahal on 29.07.2000 to appoint the petitioner as Panchayat Chowkidar. A resolution was also passed by the Gram Panchayat, Jahal on 12.09.2000, terminating the services of respondent No. 5 and to appoint the petitioner as Gram Panchayat Chowkidar on the basis of earlier resolution, dated 29.07.2000. However, vide resolution, dated 05.11.2001, the services of the petitioner were terminated as Chowkidar, Gram Panchayat Jahal. 2. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the termination of the services of the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He also contended that respondent No. 5 was closely related to respondent No. 4. 3. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General has strenuously argued that respondent No. 5 has challenged his termination before the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has passed the order on 19.10.2001, pursuant to which the resolution was passed on 05.11.2001 to terminate the services of the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The petitioner has been appointed on the basis of resolutions, dated 29.07.2000 and 12.09.2000. It is evident from the bare perusal of Annexure A-2 that there is an interpolation, whereby the decision was taken to terminate the services of respondent No. 5 and to appoint the petitioner as Gram Panchayat Chowkidar. In fact, the respondent No. 5 has challenged his termination before the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 after hearing the parties, has passed the order on 19.10.2001, which led to the passing of resolution on 05.11.2001. It is specifically averred by the petitioner that respondent No. 5 has not challenged the order of his termination. This averment is factually incorrect. The appointments to the posts in Gram Panchayat are made under Section 135 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Any person aggrieved by the removal and dismissal of the order of the Gram Panchayat can prefer an appeal before the District Panchayat Officer in case penalty is imposed by the Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti. 6. In the present case, as noticed above, respondent No. 5 has assailed his termination before the District Panchayat Officer. Any person aggrieved by the removal and dismissal of the order of the Gram Panchayat can prefer an appeal before the District Panchayat Officer in case penalty is imposed by the Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti. 6. In the present case, as noticed above, respondent No. 5 has assailed his termination before the District Panchayat Officer. It has been specifically averred in the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 that respondent No. 4 was not related to respondent No. 5. However, in fact, Pradhan Shri Man Singh was related to the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the same. 7. The date of birth of respondent No. 5, as per resolution, i.e., Annexure A-1 was found to be 58 years. However, as per the reply, the age of respondent No. 5 was 56 years as per the School Leaving Certificate. Thus, he has only attained the age of 56 years at the time of passing of first resolution, i.e., 29.07.2000 and not 58 years, as mentioned in the resolution. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the same. Thus, it is evident that the resolution, dated 29.07.2000, was factually incorrect. There is an interpolation in the resolution, dated 29.07.2000, which has remained un-explained, whereby the decision was taken to terminate the services of respondent No. 5 and to appoint the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner was void abinitio. The resolutions, dated 29.07.2000 and 12.09.2000, passed by the Gram Panchayat Jahal were illegal. In view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.