IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20344 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.11.2010 Nahar Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner 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 ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 27.9.2010 passed by Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab thereby dropping the proceedings against the Panch (respondent No. 4 herein). A complaint was filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 4 stating that case under Section 307, 324, 336, 447, 427, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 25/54, 59 of the Arms Act was registered against respondent No. 4 and trial is pending before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, hence by invoking Section 20(2) of the Act he should be placed under suspension. Petitioner has also obtained direction from this Court in C.W.P. No. 12732 of 2009 directing the respondent No. 2 to examine the complaint submitted by the petitioner and to proceed according to law, vide order dated 21.8.2009. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 - Director decided the complaint filed by the petitioner. Director has specifically observed C.W.P. No. 20344 of 2010 2 that trial is still pending and respondent No. 4 – Panch has not been held to be guilty. In the opinion of this Court a man shall be deemed innocent unless proved guilty by the competent Court. Mere pendency of any criminal trial against the Sarpanch/Panch does not mean that he should be placed under suspension necessarily. He can be placed under suspension when Director opined that investigation or trial against the Sarpanch/Panch likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or that criminal act amounts to moral turpitude or defect of character. In the present case Director has not opined that pendency of the trial against the respondent No. 4 would embarrass the respondent No. 4 in the discharge of his duties. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that respondent No. 4 – Panch has already been enlarged on bail, in view of this, he is out of jail and can very well discharged his duties as Panch. I do not find any reason to take contrary view to the view taken by the Director. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 16.11.2010 JUDGE reena