JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral) - Instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.3 – Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Matlauda, Tehsil and District Panipat, order dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, and order dated 22.07.2014 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.1 – Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department being illegal, ultra vires, void, without jurisdiction and having been passed against the mandatory provisions of Section 53 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of show-cause notices issued to the petitioner, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Matlauda, in exercise of powers under Section 53(2) of the Act held the petitioner responsible for loss of Rs.15,86,679/- of the Gram Panchayat while carrying out the development works in the village during the period from 2005 to 2010. Accordingly, petitioner was directed to deposit the same vide order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-5). Against the order of BDPO, petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, which was dimissed vide order dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P-8). Revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the orders of BDPO and the Deputy Commissioner has also been dismissed by Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department vide order dated 22.07.2014 (Annexure P-10). Hence, this writ petition. 3. In pursuance of notice, respondents appeared and filed written statement contending that orders passed by the authorities are legal and valid and are in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner raised a legal argument that notice is contrary to Section 53 (2) & (5) and has been issued after two years of the expiry of the term of the petitioner as Sarpanch, which expired on 31.03.2010 and show-cause notice under Section 53(2) of the Act was issued on 22.05.2012. In support of his contention learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat, Shahpur v. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana Development and Panchayat Department and others, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 599. In support of his contention learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat, Shahpur v. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana Development and Panchayat Department and others, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 599. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that impugned orders have been passed without affording adequate opportunity and without considering the reply filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the BDPO is without application of mind and consequential orders have also been passed in a similar manner, which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that orders are legal and valid. Before passing the impugned order by the BDPO preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein petitioner was found guilty. Thus, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. 8. I would first deal with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner with regard to interpretation of Section 53 (2) & (5) of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat, Shahpur (supra) has held as under: - “6. A conjoint reading of Sections 53(2) & (5) reproduced hereabove makes it absolutely clear that B.D.P.O. is te competent authority to recover from any Sarpanch or Panch, as the case may be, any loss/waste or misappropriation of the panchayat funds after giving adequate opportunity to explain and further in view of the non-obstantive clause existing in Section 53(5), no person can be called upon to explain such alleged loss after the expiry of six years from the occurrence of the loss etc. or after expiry of two years from his ceasing to be a Sarpanch, whichever is earlier.” 9. Since petitioner ceased to be Sarpanch w.e.f. 31.03.2010 and show-cause notice for recovery was issued on 22.05.2012 after more than two years of expiry of term of Sarpanch, same is illegal, arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat, Shahpur (supra). In view of this, I need not go into other contentions as that would be a mere academic exercise. 10. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and impugned orders are set aside. ---------0.B.S.0------------