CWP No. 3540 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3540 of 2011 Date of decision : 28.02.2011 Bachhitar Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Gurmeet Kaur (respondent No. 5) was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Hollanwali, Block Zira, District Ferozepur, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein referred to be as “the Act”). She informed the Block Development and Panchayat Officer Zira, District Ferozepur (for brevity “the B.D.P.O”) (respondent No. 4), vide resolution dated 30.04.2010 that Gram Panchayat has convened meetings on 16.06.2009, 05.09.2009 and 15.09.2009 for the development work of the village but Panches Kulwant Kaur and Bachhitar Singh (petitioner) have refused to receive the agenda notice and did not attend the aforesaid meetings, halting the development works of the village. 2. In the wake of reports of the BDPO and Director Development and Panchayat Officer, District Ferozepur (for short “the DDPO) (respondent No.3), the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab (for short 'the Director') (respondent No. 2) suspended Kulwant Kaur, and petitioner- CWP No. 3540 of 2011 -2- Bachhitar Singh, Panches for non-attending the meetings of the Panchayat, vide order dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure P4) and regular enquiry was entrusted to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Ferozepur. The appeal filed by them was accepted by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Appellate Authority') and they were reinstated to the post of Panchs. Taking cognizance of the entire matter, the Director found that the allegations contained in the resolution of respondent No. 5 were false. Instead of issuing any show cause notice or providing opportunity to her, the Director straightway suspended her from the post of Sarpanch, by virtue of order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P5). Respondent No. 5 filed the appeal, which was accepted by the Appellate Authority, by way of impugned order dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P6). 3. Petitioner Bachhitar Singh, Panch did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P6) invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record, with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition, in this context. 5. As is evident from the record that the Director straightway jumped to suspend respondent No. 5 without issuing any show cause notice or affording any opportunity and further restrained her from taking part in the Gram Panchayat proceedings, by means of order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P5). 6. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P5), she filed the appeal, which was accepted by the Appellate Authority, vide impugned order (Annexure P6), the operative part of which is as under:- “After hearing arguments of both the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the Appellant has been suspended without any complaint or affording her opportunity of hearing, which is against law and against the CWP No. 3540 of 2011 -3- principle of natural justice. If there was any complaint against the Appellant, then she would have been afforded opportunity of hearing, which has not been done. There is weightage in the reasoning of the appellant and she has been suspended without afforded her opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the allegation leveled against the Appellant is not prima facie proved. Therefore, the appeal of the Appellant is accepted and she is reinstated to the post of Sarpanch. It is pertinent to mention here that this decision will not effect on the regular enquiry pending against the Appellant and in this regard the Enquiry Officer is directed to submit his enquiry report to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat within two months and after receiving the said report Director, Rural Development and panchayat may further take action in the matter of appellant”. 7. Meaning thereby, the Director did not issue any show cause notice or provided any opportunity before passing the order (Annexure P5). The solitary argument of learned counsel that no notice was required to be issued to the Sarpanch, is neither tenable nor the observation of this Court in case Rajinder Singh vs. The Director of Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh 1963 PLR 1085 are at all applicable to the present case, wherein District Development and Panchayat Officer, respondent No. 3, had issued a notice (annexure 'A') to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why he should not be suspended under Section 102(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (IV of 1953) on the grounds mentioned in that notice. To that, the petitioner had given his reply (annexure 'B'). After considering the same, the Director of Panchayats, respondent No. 1, passed the impugned order (therein) of suspension (annexure 'C'). Therefore, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, it was observed that no further show cause was required before the suspension order was passed against the Sarpanch. 8. Possibly no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observation but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner. In the instant case, no such notice was issued to respondent No. 5. It was the minimum requirement and the duty of the Director to issue show cause notice to enable the Sarpanch to CWP No. 3540 of 2011 -4- explain her position in this regard before passing the order (Annexure P5), which is against the principles of natural justice as well. 9. Moreover, the Appellate Authority has recorded valid reasons for directing the enquiry officer to conclude the enquiry and submit the report within two months in the impugned order (Annexure P6). After receiving the said report, the Director was asked to take further action, in this regard. Concisely, such order containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same is perverse or without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P6) is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit in the present writ petition, therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge February 28, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No