IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 11141 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.7.2009. Gurmukh Singh --Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner, a suspended sarpanch of the panchayat, has challenged the order dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure P-7), whereby the respondent no.2 placed the petitioner under suspension for alleged acts of misconduct as also the order dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P-9), whereby the Appellate Authority while upholding the order of suspension has remanded the case back. The petitioner was elected as sarpanch of village Khumna, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. He was served with a show cause notice dated 20.2.2009 asking to send reply in regard to the allegations levelled against him. He submitted his reply and was also asked to appear in person as is admitted by the petitioner in para 12 of the writ petition. After hearing the petitioner and considering the reply to show cause notice the respondent no.2 vide his order dated 28.5.2009 placed the petitioner under suspension while recommending the disciplinary action against him. It is specifically mentioned in the impugned order that a copy of the inquiry CWP. No. 11141 of 2009 -2- report on the basis of which the action has been initiated was furnished to the petitioner and he was also issued a show cause notice to which the petitioner had replied. On consideration of the reply and after hearing the petitioner, the order of his suspension has been passed under Section 20(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the petitioner in appeal before respondent no.1, who has upheld the order. However, on the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice was served after passing of the order by respondent no.2, respondent no.1 remanded the case back to the Director to consider this aspect of the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it was not open to respondent no.1 to uphold the order when the case was remanded back. After perusing the order of the Appellate Authority it appears that the only ground for remanding the case back is that the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner after the passing of the order. It appears that this contention was made orally before respondent no.1. From the memo of appeal, it appears that no such contention was raised before respondent no.1. It appears that the petitioner misrepresented before respondent no.1 that show cause notice was served upon him after passing of the order which fact does not seem to be correct as is evident from the order passed by respondent no.2, wherein, it was specifically mentioned that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is clearly established that the show cause notice was served before passing of the impugned order. As a matter of fact respondent no.1 should not have remanded the case back at all. CWP. No. 11141 of 2009 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner has further tried to impress upon the Court that the allegations against the petitioner have not been proved. Suffice it to say that respondent no.2 prima facie found the allegations to have been proved on the basis of the inquiry. The detailed inquiry is yet to be conducted against the petitioner. At this stage the prima facie opinion is sufficient to place the petitioner under suspension. I do not find any any valid ground to interfere in the impugned order. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 28.7.2009 lucky