Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pala Ram vs State And Ors on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CW-11444/2013]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11444/2013
Pala Ram son of Shri Birbal Ram, aged 40 years, B/c Jat, R/o
Village Rewasi, Tehsil Tara Nagar, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Programme Coordinator, Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS)
and District Collector, District Churu.
3. The Additional District Programme Coordinator (eGS) and
Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu.
4. Programme Officer (EGS) cum Development Officer,
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Scheme (MNREGS), Panchayat Samiti Tara Nagar, District
Churu.
5. The Executive Engineer, District Programme Coordinator,
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Scheme (MNREGS), Churu.
6. The Junior Technical Assistant (MNREGA), Panchayat
Samiti Taranagar, District Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.AD Ujjwal.
For Respondent(s) : Ms.Surbhi Bissa for Mr.KK Bissa, AGC.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
18/03/2021
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being
taken while hearing the matters in Court.
Application for early hearing is allowed.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard
today itself.
(Downloaded on 19/03/2021 at 08:42:14 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-11444/2013]
Counsel for both the parties submit that the controversy is
covered by judgment made by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 523/2018 (Kanta Middha Vs. State of Raj. and Ors.))
decided on 09.4.2018 which reads as under:-
"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 :-
"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 misapplication 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, straight away, on the
basis of the inquiry conducted against their back, without adhering
(Downloaded on 19/03/2021 at 08:42:14 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-11444/2013]
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."
In view of the admitted position that the petitioner is the
elected Sarpanch of the Panchyat and as the recovery order dated
16.11.2017 (Annex.P/6) 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. The stay application
is also disposed of."
On such joint submission by learned counsel for the parties,
the present petition is allowed in the same terms and while
(Downloaded on 19/03/2021 at 08:42:14 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-11444/2013]
quashing the recovery order dated 25.10.2012 (Annex.7). The
respondents are given liberty to hold the proper inquiry in terms
of the Section 111 as per law. The requisite exercise shall be
completed in this regard within four months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
Stay petition and all pending applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
106-Jitender/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
