IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12029 of 2009 Date of decision:04.12.2009 Godawar Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.11910 of 2009 Ram Parkash ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents III. Civil Writ Petition No.12062 of 2009 Santokh Singh ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents IV. Civil Writ Petition No.11959 of 2009 Sheetal Kaur ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents V. Civil Writ Petition No.12053 of 2009 Tarlochan Singh ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Civil Writ Petition No.12029 of 2009 - 2 - Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 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 impugned orders are purported to have been issued under Section 20(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. The contention of all the petitioners in this case is that they are all Panches in the Village Khama and for alleged non-support in development works as well as in Court cases, they had been directed to be suspended from the respective posts. The impugned order had observed, it would not be in the interest of panchayat if these Panches remained in that post. The contention of all the petitioners is that no enquiry has been conducted against the alleged misconduct and the order of suspension has been passed as though the misconduct had been established and they were therefore required to be suspended immediately. 2. The power of suspension provided under Section 20(4) is in a sense transitory in character. The relevant provision reads as follows:- “The Director at any time, and the Deputy Commissioner or the District Development and Panchayat Officer during the course of an enquiry, may suspend a Sarpanch of Panch for any of the reasons for which he can be removed.” Civil Writ Petition No.12029 of 2009 - 3 - The power to suspend would be available to a Director or Deputy Director during the course of an enquiry of a misconduct which could result in removal of the Panch. The suspension itself cannot amount to a punishment and if only an enquiry is being held, the question of suspension could arise. The impugned order however reads that the Director has reached the conclusion that the Panches intentionally did not cooperate in the development work of the panchayat and the cases pending in the Courts. It also records a finding that they have misused their posts. An imputation of misconduct is one of which has to fall within four corners of Section 208 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It has grave consequences of vacating the elected representatives of the village panchayat. If there are allegations against the petitioner, the provisions of Section 20 contemplates that on proof of the misconduct of any of the grounds mentioned in Section 208, the Director could order removal. Section 20(1) grants the power to the Director to remove any Sarpanch or Panch after such enquicy as may deem fit. Section 20(1) reads as follows:-- “20. Suspension and removal of Panch and Sarpanch (1) The Director may, after such enquiry as he may deem fit, remove any Sarpanch or Panch: - (a) on any of the grounds mentioned in section 208. (b) who refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting; (c) who, being a Sarpanch, without reasonable cause, fails to hold meetings of the Gram Panchayat as required under sub-section (1) of section 16 for a period of two consecutive months; (d) who, without reasonable cause, absents himself for more than two consecutive months from the meetings of the Gram Panchayat, (e) who during his present term of office or that immediately preceding it, has, in the opinion of the Civil Writ Petition No.12029 of 2009 - 4 - Director, been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or (f) whose continuance in office is undesirable in the Interests of the public : Provided that before the Director orders the removal of any Sarpanch or Panch under this sub-section, the reasons for the proposed removal shall be communicated to him and he shall be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing.” 3. The Director has perforce to grant an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing before the power of removal is exercised on the proof of the misconduct. Section 20(4) shall therefore be read in that context that during the course of such enquiry, he shall have the power to suspend. The power to suspend cannot be exercised as thought it is the punishment in itself. The impugned order does not also set out anywhere that there is a contemplated action for enquiry into misconduct or removal. On the other hand, it reads that a misconduct was established and he was ordering suspension. The impugned order is clearly in violation of the law and the impugned orders passed against the petitioners, are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.12.2009 sanjeev