Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nand Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:10959) on 5 March, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:10959]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10736/2019
Nand Lal S/o Shri Moda Ram, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste
Regar, R/o VPO Saduwali, District Sri Ganganagar (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 Sri Ganganagar.
3. The Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti Sri Ganganagar,
District Sri Ganganagar.
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Zone, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitender Singh Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.G. Chanda
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
05/03/2024
1. 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
111of the Act of 1994, which deals with liability of
[2024:RJ-JD:10959] (2 of 3) [CW-10736/2019]
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."
2. 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
[2024:RJ-JD:10959] (3 of 3) [CW-10736/2019]
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 22.04.2019 (Annex.P/7) 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.
4. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. Stay petition as
well as all pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
250-Arun P/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
