Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 307 (RAJ)

Vinod Kumar v. The State Of Rajasthan

2022-02-01

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts. 2. Learned counsel representing the parties stated that the controversy involved in the case at hand is squarely covered by the judgment dated 08.02.2016 rendered by a Single Bench in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.l 3949/2015 (Har Govind Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein this court examined import of Section 111 of the Panchayati Raj Act and held that liability against the persons classified under the said provision holding the post of Sarpanch, Gram Sevak, Ex officio Secretary or the Technical Officer in the various Gram Panchayats can only be imposed in accordance with the procedure provided in the said Section. This court observed at para No.14 of the said judgment as below :- "14. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that Section 111 of the Act of 1994, which deals with liability of Members as well as Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Panchayati Raj Institutions, inter alia specifically provides that where any loss, waste or mis-application of any money or other property belonging to Panchayati Raj Institution is caused as a direct consequence of neglect or misconduct on the part of members including Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of the Panchayati Raj Institution while in office, they shall be liable for the same. But, as per mandate of the said provision, before determining the extent and amount of liability of such office bearers for such loss, waste or mis-application of money or property, they are required to be served with a notice containing allegations against them and unless, they admit their liability and its amount, the competent authority or authorized officer is required to determine the liability or its extent, after recording evidence in support of allegations and after giving concerned office bearer an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents in creating the demand against the petitioners, who are office bearers of various Gram Panchayats, straightaway, on the basis of the inquiry conducted against their back, without adhering to the procedure laid down under Section 111 of the Act, is not sustainable in the eyes of law." The writ petitions were allowed in the following terms :- "17. For the aforementioned reasons, the demands created against the petitioners, on the basis of the inquiry conducted in their back, without giving them an opportunity of hearing, deserve to be quashed. 18. In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The impugned demands created against the petitioners by the respondents are quashed. The matter shall stand remanded to the competent authority to pass an appropriate order afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law. The amount already deposited by the petitioners against the demands created, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court or otherwise, shall be subject to final outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the competent authority. If the petitioners are held liable for the loss, if any, caused to the Panchayati Raj Institution, the amount already deposited by them, shall be adjusted against the demand created, if any. Needless to say that if the petitioners are exonerated, the amount, if any, deposited by them or where the demand created against them is found to be less than the amount already deposited by them, the excess amount, shall be refunded to them. No order as to costs." 3. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of the Panchayat and as the recovery order dated 20.11.2018 (Annex.P/3) has been passed without holding any enquiry in terms of the Section 111 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the said order cannot stand to scrutiny and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are given liberty to hold the appropriate enquiry in terms of Section 111 of the Act to fix the liability of the petitioner as per law. The requisite exercise in this regard shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of submission of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. 4. Stay petition as well as all pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.