IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14010 of 2009 Date of decision:03.12.2009 Indirawati ....Petitioner versus The Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Department of Development and Panchayats, Chandigarh and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of suspension issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul pending a criminal proceeding registered against the Sarpanch in FIR No.213 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 409 read with Section 120-B IPC. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there was a direction issued to all the Deputy Commissioners that before taking any disciplinary action, rules of natural justice must be followed and in this case, the suspension order had been issued without conducting a proper enquiry. The further contention of the learned counsel is that even as regards the criminal case, it was falsely lodged Civil Writ Petition No.14010 of 2009 - 2 - against her at the instance of some persons who held animosity against her and she being an illiterate person, accounts were prepared only by the Secretary of the Panchayat and when it was found that some amount fell short, she had already deposited that amount into the panchayat. According to her, the order of suspension effected is not valid. 2. The power to suspend and remove a Sarpanch is provided under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The power shall be exercised under the said provision either by the Director or the Deputy Commissioner. As the first issue of relevance, the impugned order of suspension has been made by the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, who by virtue of the provision under Section 51 had the power to issue an order of suspension. The suspension shall be issued as per Section 51, where a case in respect of any criminal case is under investigation, enquiry or trial, if any, in the opinion of Director or the Deputy Commissioner, the charge made or proceeding taken against him (her) is likely to embarrass him (her) in the discharge of his duties (her) and involves moral turpitude and defect of character. The Deputy Commissioner, while passing the order, has referred to the criminal proceeding and staed that on a preliminary enquiry, he was prima facie satisfied that there was a case against her and it could result in embarrassment in allowing her to continue as Sarpanch. The order of suspension conforms to law. The plea of the petitioner that no enquiry had been conducted and no charge-sheet had been framed are quite off the mark, for, the law does not contemplate proof of charges before an order of suspension is made. It has been held in several cases that Civil Writ Petition No.14010 of 2009 - 3 - suspension itself is not a punishment and unless the suspension is inflicted upon a person as a measure of punishment, it cannot be challenged in a Court of law. If the person who has passed the order had the competence and if the statute provides for the suspending person pending investigation into criminal offence, nothing further avails to a person to impugn the proceedings. 3. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.12.2009 sanjeev