Prem Parkash vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 September, 2008

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                   C.W.P. No. 16958 of 2008
                                         DATE OF DECISION : 24.09.2008

Prem Parkash
                                                            .... PETITIONER

                                   Versus

State of Haryana and another

                                                        ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH


Present:    Mr. Sanjeev Kadan, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

                   ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

The petitioner, who is Panch of Gram Panchayat Village

Budheri, Sub Tehsil Behal (Loharu) District Bhiwani and one of the

complainants against respondent No.2, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat,

has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for

quashing the order dated 5.8.2008 (Annexure P-12), passed by the Appellate

Authority, the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to

Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayats Department,

Chandigarh, whereby the order of suspension passed against respondent

No.2 has been set aside, while observing as under :

“I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone
through the record available on the file. Perusal of preliminary
CWP No. 16958 of 2008 -2-

enquiry report reveals that the first charge leveled against the
appellant is not based on the findings of the enquiry report.
Further the comments on the reply to the show cause notice
given by the Development and Panchayat Officer, Bahal reveal
that the second allegation is devoid of any merit. As such I am
of the view that the allegations levelled against the appellant do
not warrant his suspension during the pendency of regular
enquiry. Therefore, I allow this appeal, the impugned
suspension order is hereby set aside.”

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any

ground to interfere in the aforesaid order.

Dismissed.

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the

case, we direct the authorities to complete the enquiry against respondent

No.2, Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, expeditiously.

                                         ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
                                                 JUDGE


September 24, 2008                            ( JASWANT SINGH )
ndj                                                 JUDGE