The main legal point established is that suspension under Section 20(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, only requires a prima facie case to be established, and the findings of the enquiries can provide sufficient material to justify the suspension.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2, by which the petitioner was suspended as well as the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 30.07.2020 (Annexure P-15), by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order, has also been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been suspended by the respondents by invoking powers under Section 20(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, though, there is no material with the respondents against the petitioner so as to justify the suspension of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation that the petitioner has encroached upon the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat is incorrect and, therefore, once the basis for suspension is incorrect, the order of suspension dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure P-5) is contrary to the actual facts and even the order passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the appeal, cannot be sustained on the same analogy.

3. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the respondents have power to suspend a Sarpanch under Section 20(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

5. In the present case, the petitioner has been suspended by invoking the said provisions on the allegation of encroachment of the panchayat land by the petitioner. The assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that allegations are incorrect and there is no material with the respondent to connect the petitioner with the said allegations, cannot be accepted as a finding has been recorded by the authorities that the petitioner has been found in the illegal possession of the land of the gram panchayat. In the order dated 30.07.2020 (Annexure P-15) passed by the appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 1 following has been recorded :-

"Counsel for the complainant appeared and brought into the notice that as per the earlier demarcation report, Appellant was found to be in illegal possession over the Panchayat land and after affording her full opportunity, the impugned order has been passed. After filing of appeal, regular enquiry report was received from the ADC (D) Ferozepur, whereby Appellant has been found to be in illegal possession over the land of Gram Panchayat. According to law being in illegal possession over the Panchayat land, Appellant has no right to be remained on the post. Therefore, this appeal may be dismissed because the charge has been proved against the Appellant in regular enquiry also.

On perusing the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the Appellant as well as on hearing the counsel for the complainant and on considering the record, l come to the conclusion that two complaints were received against the Appellant vide dated 29.07.2019 and 31.07.2019 that the Sarpanch and her family have encroached upon 2042 ft area pertaining to Sem drain of the Government and included into their house. In this regard demarcation report dated 16.06.2019 is enclosed. On perusing the complaint, preliminary enquiry was handed over to the District Development and Panchayat Officer vide letter dated 29.08.2019, who further got the enquiry conducted through BDPO Guruharsahai and he informed that according to the demarcation report conducted by the Patwari and Kanugo, Sarpanch Arvinder Kaur is in illegal possession over the land pertaining to Sem drain and on the basis of report of BDPO, DDPO Fazilka sent his report dated 06.08.2019 for taking action against the Appellant and accordingly, on 11.09.2019, Respondent Director, Panchayat while sending the report of DDPO Ferozepur directed the Appellant to file her reply within 15 days. Upon which, the Appellant filed her reply on 19.09.2019 that she is not in illegal possession and further, claimed the demarcation report to b