Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Existing institutions to continue till new institutions are established.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the existing | | ei 144 JHE PUNJAB PANCHAYATERAJ ACT, 1994 the date -of. loss,.waste, @t misapplicatiqn,.on the amount SerRnAed under fuses (2h pubspenioasohaeae case may. bert isbeu ber sf2)eThe Bock Eaescei intl anvirereeievaa noel cebestrbar nid, on thre application aofca, Gram: ‘Panchayat cor otherwise? ‘and ‘after giving ‘the member concerned an opportunity to explain, assess, by order, in writing the ampuny Aine fom, bin, pee aeaNr sugh, wonainee or misapplication: S1or ioProvideddthat-p mungit jon = isyvernds toys ea) Where UbtRIP: A Happens’ t6 bs the ‘Chatman or a eine aad ‘°ffiefibut OF the’ Parichayat ‘Saniifi; thé prodeedings under this flo 2ouLh Rip Se¢tioH Shall be taken ‘by the: District Development and 1 bsemexs Panchayat’ Officer; « 2i thY¥E Vide tori ‘Where. such member, happens to, be the Chairman, Vice- airman or a member of e Zila Parishad, the proceedings under this sub-section shall be taken by the Deputy Director. : ny pe rieyed by an order,made under sub-section(2) may wa ra pene GREY Have oe ihe dae bf GU older appeal: yisvs ni (a) dhe Ristriet Revelonment-and, Panchayat Officer, ifthe order a 25 Johiaib oie@ibeen made, by,,the ;Block. Development, ‘and Hanchayet cer, it) ies Deputy. Director,,,jf, the order, has, been made, by the District Development and, Panchayat Officer; and,, (c) the Director, if the order has; been.,made. by, the Deputy ‘. Director. : aieyeransS avi ee hisd fasion non a to molten rand OA ApPL Ak deINg pfiledss the. appellate, authority, may suspend the iexeeutionnof theegrder pen such terns as to,,costs, payments of the ramauntiinwelvedian othenwise.as: he thinks, fit-and, subject to the result of appeal, if any, the order of; Block;Development.and Panchayat Officer, Tha tise fa bas SralPes ial 8 Officer and the Deputy Director, as Say neue anythin | contained it in ‘this ‘section no person shall weaned c n'to expt. oi He should’ ‘not be required to’ make good any loss, after the expiry of fol ye Mie from the dccurrence of trie loss, waste or misapplication or after the expiry of two voor ioe his consid to be a anepbernwhichavehisdateriio bos etsyedons% nsewiad & ONGSP THe State Gaveriment May call cand esibivine the record of any SGtder Hada” ‘UunBle? this SBCHGA for'thé purpose of satisfying itselfas to the ‘legatity aid Bro riety, Ot | gach? rider and mney conifim rm, h, Moditfy” oF Testing such order; HBS TAB As Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be made by the Sfate' Government? unless that person Has Deen afforded\ a’ reasonable eae c SREWitig Saute againet the saa a, The, am Sig Sed a8 due from & hember may! in the event of i ale roe ce om, his'| legal ‘heirs 10 the. exter 7 of property m re member. [i — me a THE PUNJAB PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994 145 Comments Embezzlement of Gram Panchayat fund —- Recovery from ex-Sarpanch — Opportunity of hearing — By letter ex-Sarpanch was directed to pay an amount, which was kept excessive cash in hand, by him during the period from January 1993 to September, 2010 — No material, muchless cogent, on record to suggest that any proper inquiry was conducted, after providing the opportunity, as contemplated u/s 216 of the Act -- Moreover, the impugned letter have been issued, without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to him, which renders it nullity - impugned letter cannot A legally be sustained. Gurmail Chand (Ex-Sarpanch) v. The State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 166 (P&H). Liability of member of Panchayat —- Speaking order — Duty of Authorities -- Petitioner was held liable for fifty percent of the loss caused to the Gram Panchayat without assigning any reason therefore — Petitioner was neither a party before the said authority nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him -- It is inexplicable how the authority below affixed liability of the petitioner without assigning any reason — Order set aside, case remanded back for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Mandhir Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2010(1) L.A.R. 5&6 (P&H). Liability of member of Panchayat — Speaking order — Duty of Authorities -- It is incumbent upon the authority to pass a reasoned order —- Any authority acting under statute, while deciding the appeal or revision would give a decision informed by reasons and not bereft thereof -- One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made - Reasons given in the order reveal the mind of authority and support the decision ultimately arrived at. Mandhir Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2010(1) LA.R. 566 (P&H). Liability of members of Panchayat — Opportunity of hearing — Argument that before enhancing the liability, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner though it was mandatory — Admittedly no show cause notice was issued — Matter remitted back to revisional authority to decide the revision petition according to law, Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 2006(2) LA.R. 226 (P&H DB).