IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26242-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision :05.09.2025 SUNIL KUMAR …Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL]

Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. Briefly, the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Rangilpur, Tehsil and District Rupnagar for the term 2008-2013. Petitioner alleges that one Sh. Manjit Singh, who was elected as the Sarpanch in January-2019, on account of party faction, moved a complaint against him, whereupon the Director, Department of Rural Development, Punjab vide his order dated 12.02.2020, directed the concerned Block Development and Panchayat Officer, to proceed against the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 216 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the 1994 Act’).

2.1 The afore-said order dated 12.02.2020 came to be challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition (CWP-20032-2020), which came to be allowed vide order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-1), by observing as under :-

“From the perusal of record, it is evident that the tenure of the petitioner as Sarpanch came to an end in the year 2013 and as enumerated under the Act, the petitioner cannot be called upon to explain for any loss after the expiry of two years from the date of his ceasing to be a member of the Panchayat or after expiry of four years from the date of occurrence of loss. Thus, action initiated by the respondents is in violation to the mandate of the statutory period of two/four years and thus, filing of the complaint by respondent No.7 after a period of about six years from the date when the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Panchayat, is self speaking and hence, the action initiated by the respondents is illegal. Merely because there is an alternative remedy under the Act or the enquiry is yet to be concluded, does not prevent this Court from taking cognizance of the action initiated by the respondents against the petitioner.

From the overwhelming facts and circumstances of the case and viewing the statutory provisions of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned letter dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure P-3) is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 216 of the Act and thus, the same being unsustainable in the eyes of law is hereby quashed and the subsequent actions against the petitioner in pursuant to the same are also quashed.

The petition stands allowed.”

2.2 It transpires that during the pendency of the afore-said writ petition before this Court, another enquiry was marked by the Financial Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, which was directed to be conducted by a Committee of three officers, who had submitted a report dated 09.05.2022. It appears that on account of certain discrepancies in the said report, the concerned department was directed to submit a clear report vide letter dated 03.10.2022, followed by another letter dated 15.09.2023 and upon consideration of the said report, the following order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) was passed :-

“From this report it is already clear that

15,12,146+11,70,171=26,82,317 is recoverable, which is already mentioned in the report.

Mr. Sunil Kumar, former Sarpanch (year 2008-2013)

and Mrs. Kamaljit Kaur, former Sarpanch (year 2013-2018), are former Sarpanches of Gram Panchayat Rangeelpur, therefore, on the report received, opinion was taken from the Law Officer regarding the action to recover a total of Rs.26,82,317/-. He brought to the notice that the action under Section 216 was initiated by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rupnagar with notice dated 12.02.2020.