LPA No.138 of 2009 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * LPA No.138 of 2009 Date of decision :December 10, 2009 * * * * * Bhupinderjit Singh ............Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. J.L Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents no. 1 & 2. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondent no.3. * * * * * HEMANT GUPTA, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on February 5, 2009, whereby the petition against the order of suspension suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch was dismissed. FIR No.75 dated 26.5.2008 was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the present appellant. The appellant was suspended by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra while exercising powers under Section 51(1) (a) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The said suspension was maintained by the statutory authorities in appeal and revision. Aggrieved against the order of suspension of statutory authorities, LPA No.138 of 2009 :2: the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court which was dismissed vide the order impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that FIR lodged against him is motivated FIR at the instance of rival candidate and in respect of the allegation which is more than 8 years old. Therefore, the order of suspension is unfair, unjust and not tenable. It is also contended that no notice was issued to the appellant before the order of suspension was passed against him. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that in pursuance of such FIR, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented before the trial Magistrate and that trial Magistrate has now framed charges against the appellant and trial is pending. The fact that FIR of misconduct and falsification of record stands registered and is pending trial is not disputed. The framing of charge, in fact, prima facie shows that the Court was satisfied with the investigation and that report requires trial. In view of the said trial, we do not find that the order of suspension can be said to be illegal for the reasons canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view thereof, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE December 10, 2009 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE