CWP No.3432 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.3432 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.2.2010 Amar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting-aside inquiry report (Annexure P-1) and order dated 25th January, 2010 (Annexure P-2), passed pursuant thereto, whereby respondent No.4 has been reinstated on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mallu Nangal, District Amritsar. A complaint was made against Jasbir Singh, respondent No.4, who was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mallu Nangal, regarding unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land bearing Khasra No.65 Min (10-9) and non-payment of Rs.3,13,500/- imposed upon him by Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer for unauthorized possession of the land. An enquiry was conducted by District Development and Panchayat Officer, Amritsar. On receiving CWP No.3432 of 2010 2 report thereof, Director, Rural Development and Panchayat placed respondent No.4 under suspension vide order dated 12th June, 2009 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order but the same was dismissed by Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, vide order dated 14th December, 2009 (Annexure P-8). In the regular inquiry, which was conducted thereafter, it was found that allegations against respondent No.4 Sarpanch were not fully proved. He was, thus, directed to be reinstated on the post of Sarpanch vide order dated 5th January, 2010 (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved, the petitioner, who lodged the complaint against Jasbir Singh (respondent No.4) has preferred the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is clear cut evidence on record to prove the guilt of respondent No.4 and thus, order of his reinstatement has been wrongly passed. Learned counsel has pointed out certain discrepancies in the inquiry report, Annexure P-1 and submitted that the said inquiry conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Dev.) Amritsar, deserved to be quashed as well. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is clear that there was an allegation against respondent No.4 of being in unauthorized occupation of certain Panchayat land. A complaint was lodged against him on this account. He was placed under CWP No.3432 of 2010 3 suspension on the basis of a preliminary inquiry conducted against him, vide order dated 12th June, 2009, Annexure P-7, passed by respondent No.2. He had appealed against the said order. However, Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab had upheld the order of suspension, vide order dated 14th December, 2009, Annexure P-8. At that time, regular inquiry against the petitioner was pending. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that in the regular inquiry, it was found that unauthorized possession of respondent No.4 over the land in question was not proved. It appears that election petition was also preferred against respondent No.4 on the same ground but the Election Tribunal vide order dated 24th August, 2009 had dismissed the petition holding that complainant had failed to prove the allegations levelled in the petition. Vide impugned order dated 25th January, 2010, Annexure P-2, he was directed to be reinstated on the post of Sarpanch by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. On the other hand, he has assailed the inquiry proceedings, Annexure P-1. He has pointed out certain discrepancies with the inquiry. This, however, is a question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction of this court. Respondent No.4, who is en elected representative of the residents of the village, cannot be removed on account of the charges which could not be substantiated during the course of inquiry. Thus, in my considered view, no CWP No.3432 of 2010 4 interference is called for in writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 25.2.2010 'rajpal'