C.W.P. No.5083 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5083 of 2011 Date of Decision:21.03.2011 Nirmal Singh ......Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat elections held in the year, 2008, petitioner-Nirmal Singh was elected as a Panch of Gram Panchayat of village Mandi Khurd, District Bathinda, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. Balwant Singh, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat moved a complaint (Annexure P-3) against the petitioner informing the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab(respondent No.2) (for brevity “the Director”) that he (petitioner) has filed a false affidavit along with his nomination papers that no criminal case was pending against him. Although, a criminal case was pending, in which he was held guilty, convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2008(Annexure P-4) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul. 3. Taking into consideration the complaint, the entire material and C.W.P. No.5083 of 2011 2 documents, the Director suspended the petitioner from the post of Panch by means of impugned order dated 17.08.2010(Annexure P-2). 4. Sequelly, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as well by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab(respondent No.1.) (for short “the Appellate Authority”) by way of impugned order dated 06.12.2010(Annexure P-1). 5. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 7. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that although for the fault of the petitioner, for filing the false affidavit along with the nomination papers, his election could only be set aside through the medium of election petition, but he cannot be suspended under Section 20 of the Act by the Director, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 8. As is clear that Section 20 of the Act postulates that 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; or (b) xx xx xx xx © xx xx xx xx (d) xx xx xx xx (e) xx xx xx xx (f) whose continuance in office is undesirable in the interests of the public. 9. Likewise, the conviction of an offence implying of any defect of a Sarpanch or Panch of Gram Panchayat would incur disqualification, unless a C.W.P. No.5083 of 2011 3 period of five years has elapsed since his conviction, as contemplated under Section 208(1)(c) of the Act . 10. Similarly, Sub-Section (3) of Section 20 of the Act posits that the Director may 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 and the Director may also suspend the Sarpanch or the Panch for any of the reasons, for which he can be removed. 11. A co-joint reading of these provisions would reveal that if any Panch is found guilty for an offence implying of any defect or whose continuance in office is undesirable in the interests of public, the Director has the ample power to suspend him during the course of regular enquiry. 12. What is not disputed here is that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 341, 323 and 385 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2008(Annexure P-4). The suspension of Sarpanch/Panch is the subjective satisfaction of the Director in such circumstances. To me, the Director has rightly exercised his subjective satisfaction and came to the conclusion that the continuance of the petitioner in the office of Panch is undesirable in the interests of the public, in view of his conviction by way of judgment(Annexure P-4). 13. Not only that, the Appellate Authority has also re-examined the matter and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by virtue of impugned order dated 06.12.2010(Annexure P-1). The operative part of which is, as under:- “After hearing the arguments of both the parties and perusal of the record, I am reached on the conclusion that in the affidavit, given by the appellant along with nomination papers, it was written in that there is no C.W.P. No.5083 of 2011 4 criminal case going on against him, whereas FIR No.54 dated 18.09.2003, P.S. Balianwali was pending and the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul, found him guilty. The appellant(sic.) was released on probation for one year on surety of Rs.5,000/- and a fine of Rs.5,00/- was imposed on him. The appellant has recorded in his statement regarding criminal record is violation of section 208(1)(B) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, so the arguments of the appellant that he had not violated any provision of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act has no weight. So the appeal is rejected.” 14. Meaning thereby, the Director as well as the Appellate Authority have scrutinized the entire material in the right perspective and recorded the valid reasons in suspending the petitioner from the post of Panch vide impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2). Such orders containing the valid reasons cannot possibly be set aside in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-2) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. March 21, 2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) seema Judge