CWP No.16224 of 2011 - 1 - .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16224 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.09.2011 Gurcharan Singh, Sarpanch ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: -Mr. Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate, for caveator/respondent No.5. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the inquiry report dated 25.5.2011 (Annexure P/2) wherein petitioner was held guilty prima facie for receiving amount under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act on the basis of forged and manipulated muster roll and order dated 23.7.2011 (Annexure P/3) whereby, petitioner was placed under suspension under Section 19(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act pending regular inquiry and order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P/4) whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Record reveals that petitioner was placed under suspension on the basis of preliminary inquiry report dated 25.5.2011 wherein petitioner was found prima facie guilty of receiving payment under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act on the basis of fabricated muster roll. Regular inquiry has been ordered, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the caveator/respondent No.5, and is CWP No.16224 of 2011 - 2 - .. pending. Since regular inquiry is pending against the petitioner, therefore, I am not inclined to invoke my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see the correctness of the suspension order on the basis of preliminary inquiry report wherein petitioner was prima facie found guilty for the charges. It goes without saying that suspension order passed under Section 19(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act cannot be kept in force for indefinite period and shall be only for the period when regular inquiry is pending against the Panch/Sarapanch. Since a regular inquiry has already been marked, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I think present petition can be disposed of with the direction to the respondents to conclude the final inquiry within 90 days in accordance with law at its own merit from the date certified copy of this order is placed before respondent No.2. If inquiry is not complete/concluded within the time prescribed by this Court i.e. 90 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents, suspension order shall be deemed having been revoked on the expiry of 90 days. However, if in the final inquiry charges against the petitioner are found proved, authorities shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is also made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice respondents No.1 to 4 while deciding the case after inquiry report. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE September 02, 2011 som