IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2190 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: April 24, 2009 Sushila Devi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Development & Panchayats Department, Chandigarh & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Civil Miscellaneous Application No.7096 of 2009 is allowed. Enquiry report dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure R-1) is taken on record. Costs paid. Challenge in this petition is to order, Annexure P-9. Order, Annexure P-9 indicates that appeal against the order of suspension of the petitioner is pending before the Secretary, Department of Development & Panchayats, Haryana. During the pendency of the appeal, however, the prayer for grant of interim stay has been declined. CWP No.2190 of 2009 [2] The effect of the order, therefore, is that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Sarpanch. Vide Order dated 12.2.2009, the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Pataudi (for short, `BDPO’), was directed to place on record of this Court the report of enquiry to see whether there is mere irregularity in procedure or the Gram Panchayat funds have been embezzled by way of non-deposit of the auction money, after sale of Musket trees/ bushes (Rs.9,285/-). From the report of the BDPO, it transpires that the Sapranch, without obtaining prior approval of the Department, auctioned the trees. The Gram Panchayat had passed Resolution No.2 dated 12.9.2007 according to Rules but the Gram Panchayat committed irregularity while auctioning the Musket trees without obtaining prior approval of the concerned Department. It has become evident that there is no allegation of misappropriation or embezzlement. In view of the above, however, without making any final observation on the merits of the case, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue to serve as Sarpanch, during the pendency of the appeal. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (AJAI LAMBA) April 24, 2009 JUDGE avin