Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaissa Bhai Damor And Ors vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 24 January, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9916/2010
Jaissa Bhai Damor And Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj. And Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyash Ramdev, on VC.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KK Bissa, on VC.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
24/01/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, the lawyers have been advised
to refrain from coming to the Courts.
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 25/01/2022 at 08:53:09 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-9916/2010]
"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 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
(Downloaded on 25/01/2022 at 08:53:09 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-9916/2010]
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 petitioners are the
elected Sarpanch of the concerned Panchayat and as the recovery
orders dated 20.09.2010 (Annex.6 to 10) 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 petitioners 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 also stands disposed
of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
146-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
