CWP No.3817 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.3817 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.3.2010 Prem Singh Sarpanch ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing inquiry report dated 15th December, 2009, Annexure P-6, whereby the respondent No.5 was exonerated of the charges levelled against him and order dated 6th January, 2010, Annexure P-7, passed by Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, whereby he reinstated the respondent No.5 (Panch) and allowed him to take part in further Panchayat proceedings. It has been stated in the writ petition that election to Gram Panchayat of village Balbera, District Patiala took place in May, 2008. The Gram Panchayat consists of nine Panches. The petitioner and respondent No.5 were elected as Panches in the said election. The petitioner preferred a complaint dated 23.1.2009 against respondent CWP No.3817 of 2010 2 No.5 for taking action against him in view of illegal occupation of certain Shamlat land. Since no action was taken thereon, the petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition No.10962 of 2009 before this court seeking a direction to initiate action against him. The said petition was disposed of on 24th July, 2009 directing the official respondents to examine the complaint of the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. Thereafter, respondent No.5 (Panch) was placed under suspension, vide order dated 19th August, 2009 and regular enquiry against him was entrusted to Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala, vide order dated 4th September, 2009 by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab (respondent No.2). The Inquiry Officer, submitted the inquiry report (Annexure P-6) vide letter No.5089 dated 15th December, 2009 exonerating the respondent No.5. The inquiry report was accepted by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab. In the absence of any proof against him, he was reinstated as Panch of the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner. It has been argued by the learned counsel that there was clear cut proof to show that the respondent No.5 was in illegal occupation of the Panchayat land and thus, he ought to have been removed from the post of Panch. He has referred to application, Annexure P-2 dated 22nd April, 1999, filed by the Gram Panchayat Balbera and the order dated 28th July, 2009, passed by the Collector/ DDPO, Patiala therein to contend that respondent No.5 was ordered CWP No.3817 of 2010 3 to be evicted from the Panchayat land. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the documents annexed with the petition. It appears that on a complaint lodged by the petitioner, a detailed inquiry was conducted by the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala against respondent No.5. A perusal of the inquiry report shows that all the allegations were considered by the Divisional Deputy Director. He came to the conclusion that allegations against him were not proved. On the basis of the said inquiry report, Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab passed the impugned order (Annexure P-7), reinstating respondent No.5 on the post of Panch. The said authority noted the fact that complainant had not given any evidence regarding respondent No.5 being in illegal possession of Panchayat land. He, thus, came to the conclusion that allegations were not proved. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with this order. The reliance placed by him on order dated 28th July, 1999 (Annexure P-2), whereby eviction of respondent No.5 was ordered, is not convincing. The said order is stated to have been passed under the Public Premises and Lands (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 in the year 1999. The election to the Panchayat was held in May, 2008. Even if it is assumed that ex-parte order dated 28th July, 1999, Annexure P-2, attained finality, the same cannot help the case of the petitioner. The election to Gram Panchayat was held almost a decade thereafter. Reliance on such a CWP No.3817 of 2010 4 document at this stage is misplaced. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE March 04, 2010 'rajpal'