Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Harinderpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No.7987 of 2020
Decided On : 10-03-2022
Suspension - Misconduct - The court held that suspension of the petitioner based on alleged misconduct during a previous tenure was illegal as per Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The bar under Section 216(4) of the Act was not applicable, and the order of suspension was quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sarpanch, was suspended based on a complaint of embezzlement during a previous tenure. The petitioner challenged the suspension through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension based on misconduct from a previous tenure was illegal as per Section 20 of the Act. The bar under Section 216(4) of the Act was not applicable, and the orders of suspension were quashed.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the suspension based on alleged misconduct during a previous tenure, and the applicability of Section 20 and Section 216(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that suspension can only be on account of misconduct during the current term as per Section 20 of the Act. The bar under Section 216(4) of the Act was not applicable, and the order of suspension was quashed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the orders of suspension were quashed.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner remained Sarpanch of the village during the period 2008-2013. He was again elected as such in the year 2019. Soon thereafter, a complaint was made that he had embezzled funds in the year 2011 i.e. during the earlier tenure. On the basis of this complaint, he was suspended. Appeal against the order of suspension has failed and thus, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that suspension is governed by Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Under the said provision, a Panch or Sarpanch can be suspended for misconduct committed during the current tenure and not for any misconduct allegedly conducted during an earlier tenure. Thus, the order of suspension was illegal. He has further submitted that Section 216 (4) of the Act bars any action after expiry of four years from the occurrence of the loss and after expiry of two years from ceasing to be a member, whichever is later. The petitioner ceased to be a member onconclusion of his tenure in the year 2013 and thus, the bar came into effect after 2015. The complaint in this case was made in the year 2019 and could not have been entertained.
3. Learned State counsel submits that a detailed inquiry has been conducted after receipt of complaint and it has been found that the petitioner embezzled a sum of Rs. 15,990/- during his earlier tenure. Bar under Section 216(4) of the Act is not attracted as according to the said provision recovery cannot be made after the time stipulated in the said sub-section. Order of suspension can always be passed and thus, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity.
4. The argument raised on behalf of the State does not answer the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that suspension can only be on account of misconduct during the current term. Thus, the argument based upon Section 20 of the Act possesses merit. Even if bar under Section 216(4) of the Act is not attracted, the order of suspension is bad in law as it is based upon an alleged misconduct committed in the year 2011 and not during the current term.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and orders impugned therein are quashed.
Suspension can only be based on misconduct during the current term as per Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
The court established that suspension of a Sarpanch is permissible when an inquiry is initiated under the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and Rules.
The court established that the suspension under Section 38(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, was justified when the petitioner was found involved in a corruption case and the procedural r....
Suspension of an elected official under ongoing criminal proceedings is valid, yet procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries must be maintained—misconduct finding quashed for lack of hearing.
The court affirmed that the State Government can suspend a Sarpanch based on inquiry initiation, even without a preliminary report, provided the member is given an opportunity to explain.
Point of law: power of suspension may be invoked by the State Government, if the proceedings have been commenced for removal of a member as provided under subsection (1) of Section 39 of the Act of 2....
The court ruled that the suspension of an elected Sarpanch was unjustified as the conditions for suspension were not met, emphasizing the distinction between elected representatives and public servan....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
