Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aatma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17865/2019
Aatma Ram S/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 47 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Vpo Gadhra, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh.
3. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JS Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. GS Chouhan for
Mr. KK Bissa, Addl. GC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/12/2021
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.13949/2015 (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 :-
(Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 08:58:56 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-17865/2019]
"14. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that Section
111of 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
(Downloaded on 06/12/2021 at 08:58:56 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-17865/2019]
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."
In view of the admitted position that the petitioner is the
elected Sarpanch of the Panchayat and as the recovery order
dated 01.07.2019 (Annex.P/8) 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.
Stay petition as well as all pending applications also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
48-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
