In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 55 of 2011 Date of decision: January 20,2011 Sukhdev Singh ..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Bahadur Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The contours of the facts which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose for deciding a core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that Rajinder Pal (respondent No.3) was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Machian Khurd. A criminal case was stated to have been registered against him on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 341 and 376 IPC vide FIR No.341 dated 23.5.2009 by the police of Police Station Baheri, District Bareli (U.P.). The matter was brought to the notice of Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (Respondent No.2). Taking cognizance of the FIR, respondent No.2 suspended the Sarpanch respondent No.3 vide order dated 7.7.2009 ( Annexure P- 1). 2. Aggrieved by order (Annexure P-1), respondent No.3 filed the appeal which was dismissed as well vide order dated 20.7.2009 by the Appellate Authority. The respondent challenged these orders in this Court by way of CWP No.12033 of 2009. The writ petition came to be disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Permod Kohli, J)vide order dated 11.8.2009, the operative part of which is as under:- “Notice of motion. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G. Punjab has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondent-State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the Director, Rural Development & Panchayat placing the petitioner under suspension on account of FIR No.341 under Section 376 IPC in exercise of the powers under Section 20(3) of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Punjab Government Rural Development & Panchayat Department, which has also been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 20.7.2009. The main ground for challenging the aforesaid order is that the petitioner was not put to any notice and thus the same is violative of Principles of natural justice. This plea was also raised before the Appellate Authority. There is some substance in the contention of the petitioner. Though, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on this ground itself, however, in view the nature of allegations against the petitioner, while keeping the suspension of the petitioner intact the impugned orders are hereby set aside with a direction to respondent No.3 to serve a show cause notice to the petitioner and after soliciting the reply, pass a fresh order. Disposed of as such.” 3. During the course of pendency of the matter, respondent No.2 sought the report from the District Development and Panchayat Officer (for short “D.D.P.O.”) who reported that the FIR in question registered against Rajinder Singh Sarpanch has been cancelled. Taking into consideration the report of D.D.P.O., respondent No.2 reinstated respondent No.3 as a Sarpanch vide impugned order dated 5.5.2010 (Annexure P-2). 4. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable assistance and considering the entire matter deeply to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 6. Ex. facie the solitary argument of the counsel for the petitioner that since the cancellation report has not yet been accepted by the concerned Court, therefore, respondent No.3 cannot be reinstated is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that respondent No.3 was suspended mainly on the ground of registration of a criminal case. What is not disputed here is that the indicated FIR registered against him has already been cancelled. Once the FIR registered against respondent No.3 has already been cancelled then there was no option with respondent No.2 except to reinstate him. Therefore, to my mind, respondent No.2 has rightly reinstated the petitioner vide impugned order (Annexure P-2) which deserves to be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, the writ petition is dismissed as such. 9. Needless to state that if (respondent No.3) is subsequently charged for any such criminal offence, then petitioner would be at liberty to again take up the matter with the appropriate authority in this regard. January 20,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE