Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
rajasthan panchayat act, 1953 - sections 17(4) and 70b--deliberations on note-sheet--not communicated to petitioner--held, it does not amount to government order and (ii) in absence of order there can be no review of order.;simply because certain deliberations took place on the note-sheet, but it was not communicated that cannot amount to government order. if the petitioner has been communicated by any order that he has been exonerated and, thereafter, the state govt. wanted to re-consider the matter, then that could have been a matter of review, but that stage has not reached in the case of the petitioner.;(b) rajasthan panchayat act, 1953 - sections 17(4) and 70b and constitution of india--article 226--removal of sarpanch--matter pending for 3 years--telegram received by his son on 3rd march requiring him to appear on 4th march well within his knowledge--petitioner appearing on 5th march--held, it does not entitle him to sympathy of court.;in view of the fact that the matter was hanging fire for the last three years and the state government wanted to dispose of the matter expeditiously, for that porpose, a telegram was issued on 28th february and the same was delivered to the petitioner's son on 3rd march, and the petitioner was to appear on 4th march...but petitioner knowing fully well, the telegram, which was received on 3th march, did not appear on 4th march and appeared on 5th march and moved an application showing that he appeared on 4th march, does not entitle any sympathy from this court.;writ dismissed - - garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that since it was review order under section 70-b of the panchayat act, therefore, it should have been clearly mentioned in the order that government proposed to review the order, as no such thing was mentioned in the notice, while exercising the power of review under section 70-b of the act. but petitioner knowing full well, the telegram, which was received as 3rd' march, did not appear on 4th march and appeared on 5th march and moved an application showing that he appeared on 4th march, does not entitle any sympathy from this court.ashok kumar mathur, j.1. the petitioner, by this writ petition has challenged the orders (anx.10) dated 13-3-1986 and 31-3-1986 (anx.11) passed by the state government. it has been prayed that the order of removal of the petitioner from the office of sarpanch gram panchayat, sandwa may be set saide.2. the petitioner was elacted as sarpanch of gram panchayat, sandwa panchyat samiti sujangarh, district churu. a preliminary enquiry was held against him and thereafter, on the basis of the report of the preliminary enquiry, a regular enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the various charges as enumerated in anx. 10 dated 13th march, 1986. it is alleged by the petitioner that on the basis of the reply filed by him, the government came to a conclusion that no charge is proved against the petitioner. it is alleged that minister exonerated the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him on 15-10-1985. the petitioner applied for the copy of the judgment of the hon'ble minster for panchayat raj passed on 15-10-1985 but the same was not supplied to the petitioner, but on 4th march, 1986 at 8 a.m. the petitioner received a telegram asking him to appear before the hon'ble minister for panchayat raj for hearing. as the petitioner received this telegram only at 8 a.m. he started from his village sandwa for jaipur at 8 30 a.m. the bus reached jaipur at 2.30 p.m. and from the bus stand, the petitioner reached secretariat by p.m. and he submitted his application. he was told that his case was called earlier in the day. he moved an application and prayed that he may be given chance of hearing and the next date be given but the petitioner received no information. thereafter, the petitioner received an order dated 13th march, 1986 by which he was informed that a finding has been record against him under section 17(4) of the rajasthan panchayat act (here in after referred to as 'the act') and as such he has been disqualified for holding such office for a further period of 5 years. aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present writ petition. a return has been filed by the respondent. mr. r.c. maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner is guilty of making a false statement. it has further been submitted that the petitioner has unnecessarily tried to confuse the various enquiries to the present enquiry in question. it is submitted that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the additional district development officer, churu and he submitted report anx. r 1, finding him guilty of serious irregularities, including sale of land illegally, illegal grant of patias and likewise. on the basis of this report, the petitioner was called for hearing. he was given six notices from 6th february, 1982, 22nd february 1982, 7th august, 1982, 6th december, 1982,6th may, 1983, 19th may, 1983, 5th october, 1983 and 19th december, 1983. the petitioner avoided for one reason or the other. it has further been submitted that it is true that on note sheet a order was passed by the government exonerating the petitioner but no order was issued by the state government in consequence of the note sheet dated 15-10- 985 and the matter was reviewed by the state government and the government concurred with the finding of the report sent by the additional district development officer and found all the charges proved. thereafter, a telegram was issued to the petitioner asking him to appear for hearing before the minister. the telegram was delivered to the petitioner through his son on 3rd march, 1986 at 12.00 p.m. the telegram was despatched on phone on 28-2-1986 from the office of the deputy secretary (inquiries). the telegram was delivered to the petitioner's son on 3rd march, 1986, at 12.00 p.m. as reported by the sub-post master, sandwa. the petitioner was given an opportunity to appear before the minister on 4th march, 1986, but the petitioner has deliberately avoided to appear in pursuance of the intimation delivered to the petitioner. it has further been submitted that the petitioner has malafide mentioned the date on the application filed by him on 4th march, 1986, when in fact it was submitted on 5th march, 1986.3. in this background, the whole matter has to be reviewed. mr. garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that since it was review order under section 70-b of the panchayat act, therefore, it should have been clearly mentioned in the order that government proposed to review the order, as no such thing was mentioned in the notice, while exercising the power of review under section 70-b of the act. learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that telegram was not a sufficient notice to the petitioner and such a short notice cannot be said to be a proper notice. in this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on mohan swaroop moni v. state of rajasthan 1957 rlw 283 and d.c. and gen. mills v. thejvir singh : (1972)illj201sc .4. i think the submission of mr. garg has no substance. unfortunately the petitioner has tried to give an impression that the petitioner was exonerated and the state government is trying to review the order of exoneration, but the fact is that the petitioner was never exonerated by any order passed by the state government. according to report of the enquiry officer conducted against the petitioner, he was not found guilty of all the charges. the same was submitted before the government and in that note-sheet, it was mentioned that the petitioner may be exonerated, but no government order to that effect was passed. simply because certain deliberations took place on the note-sheet, but it was not communicated, that cannot amount to government order. if the petitioner has been communicated by any order that he has been exonerated and, thereafter, the state government wanted to re-consider the matter, then that could have been a matter of review, but that stage has not reached in the case of the petitioner. no communication was ever issued to the petitioner that he has been exonerated. respondents reply is that the matter has been hanging fire for a pretty long time and petitioner was issued a telegram on 28th february, which reached on 3rd march, for final arguments. it is clear that the petitioner was not exonerated and the matter was pending before the state government. thus, it is not a case of review and the contention of mr. garg is without any basis and it is rejected.5. it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice of telegram was not sufficient as time lag was too short. it depends from facts to facts. it could have been proper for the state government to have given a sufficient long time to the petitioner. but in view of the fact that the matter was hanging fire for the last three years and the state government wanted to dispose of the matter expeditiously, for that purpose, a telegram was issued on 28th february and the same was delivered to the petitioner's son on 3rd march, and the petitioner was to appear on 4th march. it was possible for the petitioner to have appeared on 4th march before the government and if he was not prepared, he could have sought the time. but petitioner knowing full well, the telegram, which was received as 3rd' march, did not appear on 4th march and appeared on 5th march and moved an application showing that he appeared on 4th march, does not entitle any sympathy from this court. the application is on record an anx. 12, which shows that it was received on 5th march, but in the content of application, it was mentioned that he appeared on 4th. this does not appear to be correct. more so, i have also gone through the report of the additional district development officer and i am not inclined to interfere in the matter.6. thus, in the result, i do not find any merit in the writ petition. the writ petition is dismissed. no order as to costs.