IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Sukhdev Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 20420 of 2022
Decided On : 24-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reinstatement of sarpanch after suspension. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. failure to act against encroachments. (Para 3) |
| 3. defense of actions taken by sarpanch. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. legality of suspension and reinstatement. (Para 6) |
| 5. judicial observations on the case. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. independence of inquiry from this decision. (Para 9) |
| 7. dismissal of the civil writ petition. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Vikas Bahl, J.
Challenge in the present Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats (Exercising the powers of Government under the PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT , 1994) vide which the order dated 07.12.2021 has been set aside and respondent No.4 has been reinstated as Sarpanch of Village Kohala, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Further prayer has been made that the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (Annexure P-3) vide which respondent No.4 had been suspended from the post of Sarpanch, be upheld.
Brief Facts Of The Case:-
2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.4-Jassa Singh was elected as Sarpanch of Village Kohala in January, 2019. The Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, vide its order dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-3), had suspended respondent No.4 from the post of Sarpanch while exercising its powers under Section 20 (4) of the PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT , 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as "the 1994 Act") on the ground that respondent No.4 had not initiated action for vacating the illegal occupation of the occupants from the panchayat land and had colluded with them. Respondent No.4 had filed an appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab Government and the said appeal was allowed vide order dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) and respondent No.4 was reinstated to the post of Sarpanch. In the said order, it was stated that the observations made in the order would have no bearing on the merits of the regular inquiry which is pending. The petitioner, who is stated to be a resident of Village Kohala, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) reinstating respondent No.4 as Sarpanch.
Arguments On Behalf Of The Petitioner:-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier Gram Panchayat had instituted an application under Section 7 of the PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS ACT read with Sections 5 and 7 of the PUBLIC PREMISES ACT , 1971 for evicting Satnam Kaur wife of Bikkar Singh, Bikkar Singh son of Ujagar Singh, Gurmeet Singh son of Bikkar Singh and Tara Singh son of Dhir Singh from Khewat No.337, Khatauni No.517, Khasra No.83(4-10) situated in Village Kohala, District Jalandhar. It is further submitted that vide order dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure P-1), the DDPO-cum-Collector, Jalandhar had allowed the said application and the said persons were ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute and were directed to remove the illegal encroachment and were imposed a penalty/fine of Rs.50,000/-. It is contended that respondent No.4 who was elected as a Sarpanch in January 2019, did not take any active steps to evict the persons named above, against whom, the eviction order dated 21.03.2018 had been passed. It is further contended that it is the petitioner who had filed writ petition bearing No.CWP- 10879-2019 and in the said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.09.2021, had directed that demarcation be carried out by Total Survey Machine on or before 29.09.2021 and the matter was adjourned to 06.10.2021 with a direction that demarcation report be submitted before the Court and it was further observed that in case, any of the parties were found to be in illegal possession of land then the said party would hand over the vacant possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat. It is subm
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.
An elected representative cannot be placed under suspension in a routine manner and the government must satisfy itself that the charges are of a grave nature and that the continuation of the incumben....
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.
Suspension of an elected representative is valid when misconduct is established, with the suspension being justified under relevant statutory provisions, ensuring accountability and public confidence....
Exercise of the powers by the District Development Officer in the first instance and Additional Development Commissioner in the second, were not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the a....
If Sarapnach fails to call such meeting, the Secretary of the panchayat shall forthwith make a report thereof the competent authority and thereupon the competent authority shall call a meeting of the....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.