The main legal point established is the significance of natural justice, fair procedure, and the duty to act judicially in administrative proceedings, especially when involving civil consequences. The court emphasized the need for objective consideration of the reply, recording of reasons, and the limitations on the power of suspension of elected representatives of local bodies.

G.S.Singhvi and Nirmal Singh JJ.

1. This petition is a typical example of male bias against the female Panches and Sarpanches in the State of Haryana which is evinced from hundreds of cases filed by them against the orders of suspension/removal passed by Deputy Commissioners of different Districts on trifle allegations. This is a sad tribute to the constitutional goal of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and the effort made by the Parliament and the State Legislatures to give adequate representation to the female population of rural India in the units of self-employ-ment as contemplated under Part IX-A of the Constitution of India.

2. For deciding the issue arising in this petition, we have taken the facts from the pleadings of the parties and the file produced by Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, Senior Deputy Advocate General. 3. The petitioner was elected as Panch of Gram Panchayat, Nangal Khurd, District Sonepat in March, 2000. Inder Singh and Raghbir Singh sons of Chhotu, two residents of Village Nangal Khurd, could not digest the forward march of a lady to become an ac- tive participant in the grass-root level democracy. They made complaint dated 3.12.2001 to Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat (respondent No. 2) that the petitioner had made en- croachment on land bearing killa No. 29/3/1 belonging to the Gram Panchayat and con- structed a house over it and for this, action may be taken against her in accordance with law. They also named Tek Chand, another Panch, who is said to have made encroach- ment on Gram Panchayat land. Vide memo dated 10.2.2001, respondent No. 2 forwarded the complaint to Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sonepat with the direction to make enquiry and submit report. The latter directed Tehsildar to get demarcation done through Patwari and Girdawari and then submit report to his office. Shri Ashok (Patwari) is said to have visited the site on 12.4.2002 and submitted report of even date to Tehsildar that the petitioner had unauthorisedly encroached on land measuring 18 feet x 18 feet and raised construction over it. Thereupon, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sonepat informed respondent No. 2 that the petitioner had encroached the land measuring 66 square yards. Respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 25.9.2002 to the peti- tioner to show cause to why action may not be taken against her under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the "the Act"). She filed reply dated 9.10.2002 and denied the allegation of having encroached on panchayat land. She pointed out that the disputed construction had been made prior to 31.3.2000 and that she was living in the joint family. She further pointed out that vide unanimous resolution dated 16.1.2001, the Gram Panchayat, had requested the authorities to assess the value of the land. She also indicated that the matter was pending in the Civil Court in the suit titled - Sammedin v. Gram Panchayat and Stay order had been passed in their favour. However, without considering her reply in a correct perspective and by using the stock, phrase that the same was not satisfactory, respondent No. 2 passed two orders dated 24.12.2002. By one order, he directed holding of regular enquiry against the petitioner under Section 51(1)(b) of the Act on the charge that she had constructed the house by making unauthorised encroachment on land measuring 36 square yards. By another or-der (Anncxure P1), he placed the petitioner under suspension under Section 51(3) of the Act by observing that the allegation leveled against her was so serious that she could be removed from the post of Panch. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension by filing an appeal under Section 51(5) of the Act which was dismissed as time barred by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Developent and Panchayats Department (hereinafter described as the appellate authority) vide his order dated 19.9.2003 (Annexure P2