IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.12029 of 2009
Date of decision:04.12.2009
Godawar Singh ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
II. Civil Writ Petition No.11910 of 2009
Ram Parkash ..Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
III. Civil Writ Petition No.12062 of 2009
Santokh Singh ..Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
IV. Civil Writ Petition No.11959 of 2009
Sheetal Kaur ..Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
V. Civil Writ Petition No.12053 of 2009
Tarlochan Singh ..Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Civil Writ Petition No.12029 of 2009 -2-
Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The impugned orders are purported to have been issued
under Section 20(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act by the Director, Rural
Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, who is arrayed as the
2nd respondent in the writ petition. The contention of all the petitioners
in this case is that they are all Panches in the Village Khama and for
alleged non-support in development works as well as in Court cases, they
had been directed to be suspended from the respective posts. The
impugned order had observed, it would not be in the interest of
panchayat if these Panches remained in that post. The contention of all
the petitioners is that no enquiry has been conducted against the alleged
misconduct and the order of suspension has been passed as though the
misconduct had been established and they were therefore required to be
suspended immediately.
2. The power of suspension provided under Section 20(4) is in
a sense transitory in character. The relevant provision reads as follows:-
“The Director at any time, and the Deputy Commissioner or
the District Development and Panchayat Officer during the
course of an enquiry, may suspend a Sarpanch of Panch for
any of the reasons for which he can be removed.”
Civil Writ Petition No.12029 of 2009 -3-
The power to suspend would be available to a Director or Deputy
Director during the course of an enquiry of a misconduct which could
result in removal of the Panch. The suspension itself cannot amount to a
punishment and if only an enquiry is being held, the question of
suspension could arise. The impugned order however reads that the
Director has reached the conclusion that the Panches intentionally did
not cooperate in the development work of the panchayat and the cases
pending in the Courts. It also records a finding that they have misused
their posts. An imputation of misconduct is one of which has to fall
within four corners of Section 208 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It
has grave consequences of vacating the elected representatives of the
village panchayat. If there are allegations against the petitioner, the
provisions of Section 20 contemplates that on proof of the misconduct of
any of the grounds mentioned in Section 208, the Director could order
removal. Section 20(1) grants the power to the Director to remove any
Sarpanch or Panch after such enquicy as may deem fit. Section 20(1)
reads as follows:–
“20. Suspension and removal of Panch and Sarpanch (1)
The Director may, after such enquiry as he may deem fit,
remove any Sarpanch or Panch: –
(a) on any of the grounds mentioned in section 208.
(b) who refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting;
(c) who, being a Sarpanch, without reasonable cause,
fails to hold meetings of the Gram Panchayat as
required under sub-section (1) of section 16 for a
period of two consecutive months;
(d) who, without reasonable cause, absents himself for
more than two consecutive months from the meetings
of the Gram Panchayat,
(e) who during his present term of office or that
immediately preceding it, has, in the opinion of the
Civil Writ Petition No.12029 of 2009 -4-
Director, been guilty of misconduct in the discharge
of his duties; or
(f) whose continuance in office is undesirable in the
Interests of the public :
Provided that before the Director orders the removal of any
Sarpanch or Panch under this sub-section, the reasons for
the proposed removal shall be communicated to him and he
shall be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in
writing.”
3. The Director has perforce to grant an opportunity of
tendering an explanation in writing before the power of removal is
exercised on the proof of the misconduct. Section 20(4) shall therefore
be read in that context that during the course of such enquiry, he shall
have the power to suspend. The power to suspend cannot be exercised as
thought it is the punishment in itself. The impugned order does not also
set out anywhere that there is a contemplated action for enquiry into
misconduct or removal. On the other hand, it reads that a misconduct was
established and he was ordering suspension. The impugned order is
clearly in violation of the law and the impugned orders passed against
the petitioners, are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE
04.12.2009
sanjeev