Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—

The petitioner has chal#31;lenged order dated 07.11.2012 passed by respon#31;dent No. 2 by which he has been put under sus#31;pension and order dated 12.02.2013 by which his appeal has been dismissed by respondent No. 1.

2. In short, the petitioner is a Panch in the Gram Panchayat of village Ramgarh Pandva, Block Kalayat, District Kaithal. Respondent No. 3 filed an application to the respondent No. 2 for re#31;moval of the petitioner from the post of Panch al#31;leging that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 107 dated 23.07.2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506IPC at Police Station Kalayat, on the allegation of getting a sale deed in his favour by producing a fake person as a seller who is al#31;leged to have died earlier. Respondent No. 2 got a preliminary inquiry conducted in the allega#31;tions through the BDPO, Kalayat. He testified in his report about the registration of the aforesaid criminal case which is pending consideration in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magis#31;trate, Kaithal. The petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2011 and remained in judicial custody be#31;fore his release on bail. Thus, exercising the pow#31;ers under Section 51(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), a show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why regular enquiry may not be conducted against him. The petitioner submit#31;ted his reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, vide his order dated 07.11.2012, respondent No. 2 placed the petitioner under suspension in terms of his powers conferred under Section 51(1) of the Act and ordered his removal under Section 51(1 )(a) of the Act. The petitioner filed statutory appeal under Section 51(5) of the Act which has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 with the fol#31;lowing order :-

"I have heard the counsels for the parties and pe#31;rused the record available on the file. It is an admitted fact that a criminal case under sec#31;tions 420,467,468,41,120B, 506 of Indian Penal Code is registered against the appel#31;lant regarding impersonation while getting a sale deed registered. The appellant has been placed under suspension under section 51(1)(a) of the act in view of the said crimi#31;nal case. The appellant was afforded ade#31;quate opportunity to explain his position before placing him under suspension by the Deputy Commissioner. Arguments relating to merits on the criminal case are not rele#31;vant for disposal of this appeal. As per clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 51 of the Haryana Pancyhayati Raj Act, 1994, un#31;der which the impugned order have been passed mere investigation or inquiry in re#31;spect of any criminal offence is enough to pass the impugned order provided charge made or proceedings taken against appellant involves moral turpitude or defect of charac#31;ter of likelihood of embarrassment of the ap#31;pellant in the discharge of his duties as Sar-panch. The offence punishable under sec#31;tions 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 506 IPC un#31;doubtedly involves moral turpitude and the charge levelled against the appellant is of very serious nature. Thus, the impugned or#31;der is perfectly in consonance with the pro#31;visions of section 51(1)(a) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Hence, finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed."

3. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal case because of the village political ri#31;valry and also the respondent being in unauthor#31;ized possession of the Panchayat land which has been noticed by the petitioner as a Panch. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Raghbir Singh, Panch v. State of Punjab and others, 2013(1) S.C. T. 527, Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2009(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 483 and Chand v. Special Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Rural Dev. & Panchayats Deptt., Chandigarh and o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document