Civil Writ Petition No. 13428 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 13428 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.10.2010 Manjit Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Paraminderjeet Singh Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the parties submits that regarding the controversy involved, Tejbalkar Singh, Panch, co-accused of the petitioner, has filed Civil Writ Petition No. 14722 of 2010 titled as “Tejbalkar Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, which was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18.8.2010, wherein it has been held as under:- “...It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been charged in a case registered under Sections 307, 324, 341 and 348 IPC. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2001(4) RCR Civil Writ Petition No. 13428 of 2010 2 (Civil) 323 was pleased to lay down, that allegations under Section 307 IPC are serious in nature and, therefore, the order passed by the authorities, suspending a panch/sarpanch under Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court laying down, that, registration of case under Section 307 IPC is likely to embarrass the panch/sarpanch in discharge of his duties. The decision being of Hon'ble Division Bench is binding on this Court. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the contentions raised, cannot be disputed, that a person is entitled to be heard before an order is passed. The petitioner appeared before the Director, as well as the appellate authority. The reading of the order, passed by the appellate authority would show that the matter has been considered. It was not for the authorities under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, to give an opinion on the merit of the criminal case, registered against the person. It is only in case where the action is proposed to be taken on the administrative side under the Panchayati Raj Act, that all the Civil Writ Petition No. 13428 of 2010 3 documents necessary are required to be given to the petitioner, for defending his case, as held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another (supra). The reading of Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, shows that the registration of case involving serious offences, itself is a ground for suspension of panch/sarpanch. Once it is not disputed that the petitioner was facing trial under Sections 307, 324, 341 and 348 IPC, no error has been committed by the authorities in suspending the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of the Act. No merit. Dismissed”. After perusing the judgment rendered in Tejbalkar Singh's case (supra), this Court is not inclined to take a contrary view. Hence, the preset writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Tejbalkar Singh. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 26, 2010 “DK”