IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1846 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.8.2011 Karamjit Singh -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant questioning the order of the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat dated 28.7.2009 finding that case for removal of Sanpanch under the provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was not made out. 2. According to the appellant, respondent No.5 was engaged in alienating the common land of the village for which he was suspended but he was wrongly exonerated by the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat vide report dated 28.7.2009. 3. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the objection of the petitioner. It was held that the inquiry relied upon L.P.A. No.1846 of 2010 by the petitioner was prior to elections and decision was based on inquiry report which did not call for any interference. The Sarpanch had taken action as per directions of the Director, Consolidation (Chakbandi) and the matter was pending consideration in CWP No.13499 of 1998 in this Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding in the inquiry report was erroneous. Since alleged wrongful act of the Sarpanch is a disputed question of fact, we do not find any ground to direct removal of the Sarpanch at this stage, by interfering with the inquiry report submitted by the Director and the order passed by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. However, this order will not debar the appellant from pointing out to the Director any factual error in the inquiry report, including the fact that the subject matter of CWP No.13499 of 1998 does not relate to the village in question and if such an error is found, the Director will be at liberty to take such further action, in accordance with law, as may be called for. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE August 04, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2