IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3391 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 06, 2009 Manjit Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Anureet S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Order dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) and Order dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P-2). Under Order dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), the Director, Rural Development & Panchayat Department, Punjab, on having received a complaint against the petitioner who is a Panch in village Pharwahi, District Sangrur to the effect that FIR bearing No.175 CWP No.3391 of 2009 [2] dated 26.8.2008 had been registered under Section 420 IPC, Police Station, Sadar Ludhiana, suspended the petitioner from the post of Panch. It seems that the petitioner carried an appeal. The appellate authority i.e. Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Department, Punjab has dismissed the appeal vide the other impugned order, Annexure P-2. Legality of the orders has been challenged on the ground that the orders have been passed without taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances in the context of the provisions of law. I have considered the issue. It transpires from Order Annexure P-1 that the petitioner has been suspended on the conclusion drawn by respondent No.2 to the effect that FIR under Section 420 IPC had been registered and therefore, under the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, `the Act’), the petitioner cannot remain on the post of Panch. Per-se because of registration of the case against the petitioner, her conduct falls within the ambit of moral turpitude and cannot fulfil her duties properly. The appellate authority has not travelled beyond what has been said by the Director. Provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act read as under:- “The Director may so suspend any Sarpanch or Panch where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial if, in the opinion of the Director, the charge made or proceeding taken against him is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character.” CWP No.3391 of 2009 [3] On a reading and consideration of Orders, Annexures P-1 and P-2, I find that no relevant consideration has been given to the issue. The Director and the appellate authority were required to consider and record a finding that the charge made in the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was likely to embarrass her in discharge of her duties or involve moral turpitude or defect of character. This having not been done, the order is rendered non speaking and without reason in the context of the provisions of the Act. The issue assumes particular relevance because perusal of FIR that has been placed on record as Annexure P-4 indicates that a complaint was made on 17.6.2008 whereupon FIR No.175 dated 26.8.2008 under Section 420 IPC, Police Station, Sadar Ludhiana was registered. Allegation in the FIR in nutshell is that the petitioner was married to one Baljinder Singh. Baljinder Singh died, whereupon the petitioner get married to one Ranjit Singh son of Nahar Singh and is living as his wife since then. Manjit Kaur (petitioner), despite having been remarried, did not stop taking widow pension from UCO Bank, Aalmgir Branch, District Ludhiana. As per the averments made in the FIR, the petitioner drew pension last on 23.4.2008. Gist of the allegations therefore is that the petitioner indulged in cheating the Government of the amount of widow pension from the date when she got remarried, as per the case of the petitioner in December 2004, till she continued to draw pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner stopped accepting pension even before the election. Whatever CWP No.3391 of 2009 [4] amount had been taken by the petitioner on account of wrong withdrawal, which was attributable to her illiterate status, she has refunded back and deposited the same in the Government account. The matter is required to be reconsidered by the Director in the context of allegations made and the provisions of the Act whereupon, reasoned order is required to be passed to see whether the offending act of the petitioner, as reflected in the FIR, is likely to embarrass her in discharge of her duties or involve moral turpitude or defect of character. The petition is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. The parties would be required to appear before the Director on 16.3.2009. The Director shall reconsider the issue in the light of the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act and decide within two months of the given date i.e. 16.3.2009. The petitioner would be at liberty to place before the Director the documents in her defence. In the meantime, the order of suspension shall be kept in abeyance. The facts have been considered only so as to adjudicate on the issue and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case or conduct of the petitioner. (AJAI LAMBA) March 06, 2009 JUDGE avin