IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21072 of 2008 Date of decision:09.12.2009 Smt. Baljit Kaur ....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 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 order of suspension was issued against a Sarpanch on alleged prima facie proof of the following charge:- “That husband of the petitioner has encroached 16 marlas of land belonging to the panchayat out of shamlat land and he has constructed a shed for the cattle after raising the boundary wall.” 2. The counsel for the petitioner urged that the power of suspension under Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (called 'the Act') that is exercised by a Director shall be during the course of an enquiry in relation to what clauses (a) to (f) outlined in Section 20(1) of the Act. The charge purports to be on a ground mentioned in Civil Writ Petition No.21072 of 2008 - 2 - Section 208 as per clause (a). Section 208(k) refers “unauthorized occupation of property belonging to any local authority”. According to him, the charge against the Sarpanch was not that she was in unlawful occupation but that her husband was in unlawful occupation of the property. Assuming that the charge were to be established, the learned counsel would submit that it would still not mean a disqualification for membership under Section 208. The action for suspension was, according to him, therefore, not justified. 3. At the time when the writ petition was filed and when notice of motion was ordered, it appears the suspension was stayed by this Court. The learned counsel for the State contends that the enquiry by the Divisional Deputy Director Panchayat has been concluded and the report has also been submitted. Since the petitioner continues in office by virtue of the stay order, no further direction may be necessary. The dispensation shall be that the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension for the charge which is levelled against her, since it proves no ground of ineligibility to continue as a member. The authorities are at liberty to take any other action for the alleged laxity on the petitioner’s part in failing to remove the encroachment, but for an act that does not come within the four corners of any of the disqualifications of membership outlined under Section 208, the petitioner shall not be suspended. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms, reserving to the respondents the liberty to take such action as the report would allow the authorities to take. 09.12.2009 (K.KANNAN) sanjeev JUDGE