District Social Welfare Officer Panipat (Sh. R.S. Hooda) & Ors v. Rishi Pal (Ex. Sarpanch)

IN T

District Social W Rishi Pal (Ex. S

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

MANDEEP PA

1.

and decree dat Panipat, whereb partly allowed a Civil Judge (Jun Brief facts

2.

Village Palheri, 2010. The case

10.1.2013 and r Welfare Officer THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da Welfare Officer, Panipat and Ano VERSUS arpanch) and Others ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryan r. Lekh Raj Sharma, Mr. Vikram r. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate fo ne for proforma respondents No -.-

ANNU,J. e present Regular Second Appe ted 4.11.2016 passed by the l by the appeal filed by the plain and the judgment and decree dat nior Division), Panipat dismissin e plaintiff/respondent No.1-Ris , District Panipat, for two con e of the plaintiff was that cer reminder No.1566 dated 1.2.2013 r, Panipat, calling upon him to

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1070-2017 (O&M) served on:-26.08.2025 ate of Decision : 01.09.2025 other ....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU na. Pundir and or respondent No.1. .2 and 3. eal is directed against the judgm learned Additional District Jud ntiff/respondent No.1-Rishipal w ted 12.3.2015 passed by the learn ng the plaintiff's suit was set asid shi Pal was an elected Sarpanch nsecutive terms between 2000 rtain letters bearing No.331 da 3 were issued by the District So deposit an amount of Rs.66,70

-ment dge, ned de. h of ated cial 06/-

towards the wid Rs.49,107/- tow Shanti, along wi these letters wer any manner. His authorities in ac recommending t Sarpanch was beneficiaries wa Patwari and Do received any pe official capacity decree of declar relief of mandat from making rec

3.

On Officer and De objections of ma non-issuance of plaintiff, while allowed them to Kamlesh had pe deceased husba continued to rec Pal. Similarly, i dow pension wrongly drawn by wards helpless pension wrongly ith interest at the rate of 12% per re wholly illegal, null and void s stand was that the pensions had ccordance with the Governmen the names of the proforma defen limited to distribution of pe as sent by the competent commi octor. It was further the stand ecuniary benefit out of the pen y in disbursing pensions. On ration declaring the impugned le tory injunction and permanent in covery from him. n notice, defendants No.1 and eputy Commissioner, contested aintainability, want of cause of a f notice under Section 80 CPC. acting as Sarpanch, colluded w o receive pension despite their in erformed a Kareva/karepa marria and, and was, therefore, not en ceive it with the connivance of it was alleged that Smt. Shanti'

defendant No.3 Smt. Kamlesh y drawn by defendant No.4 S r annum. According to the plaint and not binding upon his rights d been sanctioned by the compet nt procedure and he had no role ndants. He claimed that the task ensions once the list of eligi ittee, which included the Tehsild of the plaintiff that he had ne nsions and had merely acted in these averments, he prayed fo etters as illegal and void, along w njunction restraining the authori 2, i.e. the District Social Welf the suit. They raised prelimin action, suppression of true facts On merits, their case was that with the proforma defendants neligibility. It was alleged that S age with Krishan Lal, brother of ntitled to widow pension, yet the plaintiff/respondent No.1-Ri 's husband had returned alive fr

- Smt. tiff, s in tent e in k of ible dar, ever his or a with ities fare nary Smt. her she ishi

abroad, renderin the same. It w embezzlement o him.

4.

On issues :- 1) pra 2) inju pra 3) to f 4) from 5)

5.

In e he had merely directions of th included by the upon the fact t identification of He also asserte stopped by the D was wholly unw ng her ineligible for helpless pen as thus asserted that the plain of government revenue, and reco n the basis of the pleadings, th Whether the plaintiff is entit ayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiff is en unction with consequential re ayed? OPP Whether the plaintiff has no file the present suit? OPP Whether the plaintiff has sup m the Court? OPD Relief. evidence, the plaintiff examined performed the ministerial dut he Government, and that the na e official committee or by the N that as early as 2002 the pens f the then Nambardar Mam Chan d that since 2006 the pensions Department itself, and therefore warranted.

nsion, yet she too continued to dr ntiff was guilty of dishonesty a overy had rightly been ordered fr e trial court framed the follow tled to the decree for declaration ntitled to the relief of mandat elief of permanent injunction cause of action and no locus sta ppressed the true and material fa d himself as PW1 and reiterated t ty of disbursing pensions on ames of proforma defendants w Nambardar of the village. He rel sions had been sanctioned on nd and not on his recommendati s of Kamlesh and Shanti had b fastening recovery on him in 20

- raw rom wing n as tory as andi acts that were lied ion.

6.

On as DW1, who p DW1 admitted t in 2006 and th pensions. The d Certain affidavi Mark D, but bo DW5 Rajender plaintiff had co pension. Findings of the

7.

Up dated 12.3.2015 under duty to di in knowledge of recovery ordere declaration and objections as to and were held in Findings of the

8.

Additional Dist afresh. It noted affidavits produ Welfare Officer n the other hand, the defendants e proved the impugned letters. H that the pensions of Kamlesh an at recovery was to be effected defendants also examined Kaml its purported to be signed by th oth Kamlesh and Shanti denied Tyagi was also examined. The d olluded with the proforma defe e trial Court on consideration of the materi 5 dismissed the suit. It held that ischarge his functions diligently, f the ineligibility of proforma de ed against him was justified. A d injunction were decided ag cause of action and suppression n his favour. Relief was denied a e Appellate Court e plaintiff preferred appeal, w trict Judge, Panipat. The Appel d that both Kamlesh and Sha uced by the defence. It further no r, had himself admitted in cross-

examined Ashwani Madan, DSW However, in his cross-examinat nd Shanti had already been stopp d from the actual recipients of lesh as DW3 and Shanti as DW hem were produced as Mark C d having executed those affidav defence sought to establish that endants for illegal disbursement ial, the trial Court vide judgm t the plaintiff, being Sarpanch, w , but he had failed to do so and w efendants. It was concluded that Accordingly, the issues relating gainst the plaintiff, whereas n of material facts were not pres and the suit was dismissed. which was heard by the learn llate Court examined the evide anti had categorically denied oticed that DW1, the District So -examination that recovery ough

- WO, tion ped W4. vits. t of ment g to ssed ned nce cial

be made from th other person. It hearing had be letters, which w court emphasize been stopped an plaintiff in 2013 the plaintiff had these findings, partly decreed restraining defen

9.

challenging the j Appellate Court

10.

respondents. Up Submissions of

11.

Lea the lower Appe judgment of the had dishonestly Smt. Shanti des collusion with t contended that t he persons who had actually dra t was also observed that no sho een given to the plaintiff befor was in violation of the principle ed that after 2006 the pensions o nd, therefore, it was wholly unju

¶3It was concluded that there wa d colluded with proforma defend the appellate court reversed th the suit, declaring that the im ndants No.1 and 2 from effecting e present Regular Second App judgment and decree dated 04.1 t. tice of the present regular seco pon notice, only respondent No.1 f behalf of the appellants arned counsel appearing on beh ellate Court had gravely erred trial court. It was urged that the disbursed widow pension to Sm spite their ineligibility, and tha the said beneficiaries for his ow the trial court had correctly hel

awn the pension, and not from ow cause notice or opportunity re issuing the impugned recov es of natural justice. The appel of Kamlesh and Shanti had alre ustified to fasten liability upon as no cogent evidence to prove t dants for any pecuniary benefit. he judgment of the trial court mpugned letters were illegal g recovery from the plaintiff. peal has been filed by the St

1.2016 passed by the learned low ond appeal has been issued to 1 chose to contest the appeal. alf of the appellants submitted t in setting aside the well-reason e plaintiff, while acting as Sarpan mt. Kamlesh and helpless pension at such disbursement was done wn pecuniary benefit. It was furt ld the plaintiff guilty of neglige

- any y of very late ady that On tate wer that ned nch, n to e in ther

and embezzlem ordered against

12.

Lea and misconstrue read as a whole diligently, and i Exchequer. The made from the a upon selective r

13.

It w maintainable for Procedure. The court, but the l According to le appellate court i

14.

Lea material eviden which clearly in The approach of as perverse and orders were iss plaintiff's remed by way of civil court be set asid

ment of government revenue an him. arned counsel further argued tha ed the statement of DW1 Ashwa e, showed that the plaintiff did n in collusion with the proforma d e findings of the lower appellat actual recipients and not from th reading of evidence and conjectu was also contended that the s r want of mandatory notice und objection had been specifically lower appellate court failed to earned counsel, in the absence o is wholly unsustainable in law. arned counsel further argued nce, particularly the affidavits o ndicated collusion and mala fide f the appellate court, in brushing contrary to law. It was also con sued after due inquiry by the dy lay in responding to the notic suit. It was thus prayed that th de and the judgment of the trial c

nd, therefore, recovery was righ at the lower appellate court misr ani Madan. The testimony of DW not discharge his duty honestly defendants caused loss to the St te court that recovery ought to he plaintiff were alleged to be ba ures. uit filed by the plaintiff was der Section 80 of the Code of C raised by the State before the t o appreciate this important asp of notice, the decree passed by that the appellate court igno of Smt. Kamlesh and Smt. Sha conduct on the part of the plaint g aside such material, was describ ntended that the impugned recov competent authority and that ce rather than challenging the ord he judgment of the lower appel court be restored.

- htly read W1, tate o be ased not Civil trial ect. ored anti, tiff. bed very ders

Submissions of

15.

On supported the ju Court had misd cogent evidence Ashwani Madan effected from th such an admissi

16.

It w had no evidenti execution of the disowned docum

17.

Lea in recommendin been sanctioned Nambardar and merely tasked w authorities. The intention on part

18.

It w already been sto from the plainti notice or opport the impugned r f behalf of the respondents n the other hand, learned couns udgment of the lower Appellate directed itself in saddling the p e. It was pointed out that even th n, in his cross-examination ha he actual recipients of pension an on was on record, there was no b was further argued that the affid iary value since both Smt. Kam e same in their depositions. The t ments, whereas the lower appella arned counsel also argued that th ng the names of proforma defend d way back in the year 2002 o d in accordance with Governm with distribution of pensions onc ere was thus no evidence to rt of the plaintiff. was also pointed out that the pe opped since 2006, and, therefor ff in 2013 was wholly arbitrary tunity of hearing had ever been g recovery letters, which was a c

sel appearing for respondent N e Court and submitted that the t plaintiff with liability without he Department's own officer, DW ad admitted that recovery is to nd not from any other person. O basis to hold the plaintiff liable. davits relied upon by the defenda mlesh and Smt. Shanti had den trial court erred in acting upon su ate court rightly discarded them. he plaintiff had not played any r dants. The pensions in question h on the identification of the vill ment procedure. The Sarpanch w ce the names were finalized by prove any collusion or dishon ensions of Kamlesh and Shanti h re, the attempt to recover amou y. More importantly, no show ca given to the plaintiff before issu clear violation of the principles

- No.1 trial any W1 be nce ants nied uch role had age nest had unts ause uing

natural justice. justified in settin

19.

Acc Appellate Court not call for inter Findings of this

20.

I ha record.

21.

Court was justif recovery cannot not in dispute. W

22.

conjectures that proforma defend reliable docume produced agains the cross-exam Officer, clearly was to be made This testimony w failed to appreci

23.

Fur been sanctioned at the instance o For this reason alone, the lea ng aside the recovery. cordingly, learned counsel subm t were based on proper apprecia rference in second appeal. s Court ave heard learned counsel for th e material question for conside fied in setting aside the trial co t be effected from the plaintiff? What requires scrutiny is the appr e learned trial Court procee the plaintiff, being Sarpanch, m dants and was aware of their in entary or oral evidence to substan st him were disowned by their a mination of DW1 Ashwani Ma established that the Department from the actual recipients of pen was vital and ought to have bee iate the significance of this admi rther, the admitted position is d way back in 2002 on the identi of the plaintiff. The procedure fo

arned lower Appellate Court w mitted that the findings of the low ation of evidence and law, and he parties and carefully perused eration is "Whether the Appel ourt's judgment and in holding t ?" The pleadings and evidence reciation thereof. eded primarily on the basis must have been in collusion with neligibility. However, there was ntiate such a finding. The affidav alleged executants. On the contra adan, the District Social Welf itself was of the view that recov nsion, namely Kamlesh and Sha en given due weight. The trial co ission. that the pensions in question h ification of the Nambardar, and ollowed by the Government mad

- wer did late that are of s no vits ary, fare very anti. ourt had not

clear that select Patwari and Do limited to distrib stopped since 2 the recipients a liable for recov unjustified.

24.

notice or oppor recovery orders recovery action vitiated.

25.

Thu They were based denied. In cont evidence, appre affidavits by Ka cannot be sadd founded in law a Conclusion

26.

In v the judgment o from any illegal plaintiff without tion of beneficiaries was by a c ctor, and later by the Nambarda bution. Moreover, pensions of b

¶006If at all any wrongful ben alone who could be made liable very in 2013, seven years after e learned lower Appellate Court tunity of hearing had been affo . The principles of natural justic n. In the absence of such oppor us, the findings of the trial cou d on assumptions and on evidenc trast, the appellate court unde eciated the admissions made b amlesh and Shanti, and recorded led with recovery. The reasoni as well as in fact. view of the above discussion, I of the learned Additional Distri lity or perversity. The trial cour t adequate evidence, whereas th

committee consisting of Tehsild ar, and that the Sarpanch's role w both Kamlesh and Shanti had b nefit was received thereafter, it w e. To hold the plaintiff persona r cessation of pensions, is who t rightly noticed that no show ca orded to the plaintiff before issu ce are foundational to any pena rtunity, the impugned letters w urt suffer from serious infirmit ce which was either inadmissible ertook a thorough analysis of by DW1, examined the denial a balanced finding that the plain ing of the appellate court is w am of the considered opinion t ict Judge, Panipat, does not su rt erred in fastening liability on he appellate court's conclusions

- dar, een ally olly ause uing l or were ties. e or l of ntiff well-that ffer

consistent with ground to interfe

27.

Con and decree dat Panipat, are affi

28.

Pen

September 01, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh the record and the settled prin fere. nsequently, the Regular Second ted 4.11.2016 passed by the l rmed. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

ciples of law. This Court finds Appeal is dismissed. The judgm learned Additional District Jud stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- ment dge,