JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner, a Sarpanch of the village Panchayat, was suspended by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 10th April, 2001. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 4th July, 2001. A copy of this order has been produced on record as Annexure P.3. Aggrieved by the two orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He prays that these orders be quashed.
2. Detailed written statement have been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been pointed out that a criminal case regarding theft etc. of a tractor was registered against the petitioner. The matter was looked into. A Show Cause Notice was given to the petitioner. After consideration of the reply, the order of suspension had been passed. It was later on confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
3. The solitary contention raised by Shri Chopra is that the petitioner was placed under suspension on a ground covered by Sub-clause (b) of Section 51(1) while the Show Cause Notice was issued to him under Section 51(1)(a) of the Haryana Panchyati Raj Act, 1994. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated.
4. On behalf of the respondents, it has been pointed out that the Show Cause Notice had been given to the petitioner under Section 51(1)(a) of the Act. It was pointed out that the petitioner had confessed his guilty during the course of investigation. Finally, the papers have been filed in Court and offences under Sections 379, 411, 420 and 120B IPC are alleged to have been committed by him. On these premises, the counsel maintain that the writ petition should be dismissed.
5. Admittedly a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. It has been already been investigated and inquired into. The papers are now before the Court for the trial of the accused. It is also not disputed that the pendency of a case of theft provides a good ground for the suspension of the Panch or Sarpanch. This is precisely what has happened in the present case.
6. Shri Chopra contends that the order of suspension relates to Sub-clause (b) and not Sub-clause(a). The contention is misconceived. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that the petitioner had been suspended on account of the pendency of the criminal case. It was specifically found that he had been accused of offences involving moral turpitude. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner specifically notices the fact that “the Sarpanch got the tractor stolen belonging to Shri Kailash Chand… By changing the number plate, he was going to sell it by fraud”. After noticing this factual position the office had passed the order “by exercising the powers conferred upon me by virtue of Section 51(1) of H.P.R.Act, 1994”. Even, the Appellate Authority has noticed the factual position and observed that “the offence in question involves moral turpitude….”.
7. On a perusal of the orders, it is clear that the action is in strict conformity with the provisions of the statute. It violates no rule or law.
8. No other point has been raised.
9. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. The respondents shall be entitled to their costs which are accessed at Rs. 5,000/-.
Sd/- N.K. Sud, J.