Civil Writ Petition No.19905 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19905 of 2011 Date of Decision :- 21.10.2011 Gurcharan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Parshotam Lal Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) Heard. Issue notice of motion to the respondents. 2. At this stage, Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of official respondent Nos.1 to 5. 3. As is evident from the record that, petitioner Gurcharan Singh Sarpanch was suspended by the Director, Rural Development Panchayat, Punjab- respondent No.2 (for brevity “the Director”), by virtue of impugned order dated 2.5.2011 (Annexure P7) on the ground that although he is 48 years old, but he has availed the benefit of old age pension and thus he misused his official position. The appeal filed by him was dismissed as well, by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Punjab Govt. Rural Development and Panchayat-respondent No.1, by way of impugned order dated 25.7.2011 (Annexure P9). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexures P7 & P9) and preferred the instant writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to Civil Writ Petition No.19905 of 2011 -2- my mind, the present writ petition deserves to be disposed of in the following manner. 6. What is not disputed here is that a regular inquiry in regard to the indicated charge was conducted against the petitioner-Sarpanch by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Ferozepur. He, after considering the material/evidence on record, concluded that the charge was levelled against the Sarpanch due to party faction. He never got old age pension. Thus, the indicated charge is not proved and submitted his report dated 26.9.2011 (Annexure P11) to the Director for taking appropriate action. 7. Meaning thereby, once the petitioner was exonerated in the regular inquiry, with regard to the same allegation/charge, on which, he was suspended, then question of his suspension did not arise at all. It is for the Director to take cognizance and appropriate action on the inquiry report in accordance with law. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of subsequent proceedings, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director to take appropriate action on inquiry report (Annexure P11) according to law. However, the operation of impugned orders (Annexures P7 & P9) shall remain stayed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 21.10.2011 Judge AS