JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Petitioner made a complaint against Balbir Singh, respondent No. 5, Sarpanca, Gram Panchayat, Khanna Kaurd, District Ludhiana, highlighting illegalities and irregularities commited by him, which according to the petitioner amounted to misconduct on the part of the Sarpanch and thus was liable to be removed as Sarpanch.
2. The complaint was considered by the authorities and on a consideration thereof, respondent No. 5 was placed under suspension. After the matter was enquired into, he was exenerated of the charges by the Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab exercising the powers of the Directed, by order dated 1.2.19%. Learned Addl. Director before passing the order exonerating respondent No. 5, concluded that the Sarpanch contested the case wherever necessary and he did not work against the rights of the Panchayat. He rather fully protected the rights and interest of the Panchayat and never helped the private persons.
3. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the order passed by the Addl. Director exonerating respondent No. 5 and therefore filed appeal before the secretary to Punjab Government, Rural and Development and Panchayat Department which was dismissed after hearing the parties, on the ground that the same was not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner-complainant as he is not aggrieved party. It is this order which has been impugned in this writ petition at the instance of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing strong reliance on Ram Phal v. The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department and Ors. (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 233 (Full Bench) submitted that the complainant or whose instance the action is initiated against the Sarpanch or the Panch is entitled to file appeal as he is an aggrieved party within the meaning of Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. According to the learned counsel, an aggrieved party would mean not only a Panch or the Sarpanch against whom action is taken but would also include the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand also relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sukh Ram v. The State of Haryana and Ors., (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 65 (F.B.) wherein it was held that the complainant is not to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before revoking the order of suspension and that the order of suspension is purely a discretion vested in the Director of Panchayats and the complainant does not come into picture at all. The complainant at whose instance the enquiry is conducted, has no legal or vested right to get the order of suspension passed by the Director and thus there is no question of issuing notice to tibecomplainant.before revoking the order of suspension.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents thus submitted that the complainant has no right to file appeal under the provisions of Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and thus the order passed by the Secretary to Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department calls for no interference.
7. Sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order of removal or suspension passed under this section, may, within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order, prefer an appeal to the State Government. On a perusal of the above provisions, we find that it is only a person aggrieved by the order of removal or the suspension order passed Under Section 20 of the Act who has a right to prefer appeal against that order. No order of removal or suspension has been passed against the petitioner as he is only the complainant. From the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Act, it is clear to us that it is only the aggrieved person i.e. a person against whom an order of removal or suspension has been passed, has a right to file appeal against that order and no other.
8. The Full Bench of this Court in Ram Phal’s case (supra) considered the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 102 of the Punjab Gram ‘Panchayat Act, 1952, which before amendment read as under:-
“Any person aggrieved by an order of removal passed under this section, may, within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order prefer an appeal to the Government.”
9. Sub-section (5) of Section 102 ibid was amended and for the words “by an order of removal”, the words “by an order” were substituted. Thus, under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed under that section could prefer an appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order. The wording of Sub-section (5) of Section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, as amended and which fell for consideration before the Full Bench is couched in an entirely different language than the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The latter provisions cannot be interpreted to mean that the complainant has a right to prefer an appeal against the order of exoneration of the Sarpanch after departmental enquiry.
10. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the matter had been brought to the notice of the State Government, it could in exercise of its power Under Section 201 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act call for and examine record of proceedings and pass such appropriate order as was considered necessary.
11. We have also considered this contention of the learned counsel and find that this contention is without any merit. Under Section 201 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act the State Government has a power to call for and examine the record of proceedings and the record of any executive order of any Panchayat or any officer or authority of the Panchayat for satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of any executive order passed. The order of suspension, exoneration or removal is not an executive order passed by the Gram Panchayat or by its officers. Such orders are passed in exercise of a quasi-judicial authority and thus do not fall within the purview of Section 201 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
12. In the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order dated 1.2.1996, Annexure P-4 passed by the Addl. Director Panchayats, Punjab exonerating respondent No. 5 deserves to be set aside being illegal and against law. We have gone through the order Annexure P-4 and find that the finding recorded by the Addl. Director while exonerating respondent No. 5 is a pure finding of fact and no glaring illegality or material irregularity could be pointed out therein. We find no mistake apparent on the fact of the order, Annexure P-4 which may call for interference. Even if it be taken that two views are possible, it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the views taken by the authority exercising its power under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and to substitute the same by another view.
13. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is consequently dismissed.