ORDER
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. In this petition, challenge by the petitioner is to order dated 2.1.1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension owing to registration of a criminal case Under Section 430/379 I.P.C. against him for theft of canal water. Challenge is also to order dated 19.8.1997 passed in appeal by Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh.
2. Petitioner was elected at Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Jurassi Khurd, Tehsil Pehowa. One Nishan Singh made a complaint to Sub-Divisional Canal Officer that the petitioner is indulging in theft of canal water. Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, acting on the complaint made by Nishan Singh, got F.I.R. No. 227 dated 14.8.1996 Under Section 430/379, I.P.C. registered against the petitioner. On the basis of this F.I.R. Nishan Singh made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and as such action be taken against the petitioner under the provisions of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act. On the basis of complaint, show-cause notice was served on the petitioner. Petitioner replied to the notice bringing it to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that no offence what so ever Has been commuted by him. it is the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 2.1.1997, placed the petitioner under suspension. Petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner in appeal and the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana. Development and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh, vide order dated 19.5.1997 dismissed the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the action of the respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension Under Section 51(3)(a) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is contrary to the provisions of law and as such is liable to be set aside. Counsel also contended that six months period has expired from the dale of issuance of the suspension order and as such petitioner is entitled to reinstatement.
4. Petitioner was placed under suspension Under Section 51(1) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. For facility of reference relevant part of Section 51 of the Act reads thus :-
“51. Suspension and removal of a Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch or Panch.
(1) The Director or the Deputy Commissioner concerned may suspend any Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch or Panch as the case may be :-
(2) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial, if in the opinion of the Director or Deputy Commissioner concerned the charge made of proceeding taken against him, is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character.
(b) xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx Provided that the suspension of a Panch, Up-Sarpanch or Sarpanch, as the case may be shall not exceed six months from the date of issuance of suspension order except in criminal case involving moral turpitude."
5. Reading of the above shows that an elected Sarpanch can be placed under suspension if he is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude. Perusal of F.I.R. registered against the petitioner shows that he has been charged for unauthorised use of canal water. In my view, unauthorised use of canal water cannot be said to be an of fence involving moral turpitude or defect of character. In a judgment reported in 1962 Supreme Court 1246, unauthorised use of canal water has been held not to be an of fence. It was held therein that for unauthorised use of canal water, enhanced water charges can be charged as prescribed by the rules. Otherwise, too proviso to Section 51(1) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, provides that suspension period of a Panch, Up-Sarpanch or Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall not exceed six months from the date of issuance of suspension order except in criminal cases involving moral turpitude. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not the one involving moral turpitude. As period of six months has already elapsed, petitioner is entitled to be reinstated as Sarpanch, Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and orders, Annexures P-4 and P-5 are quashed. It is directed that the petitioner be reinstated as Sarpanch forthwith.