CWP Nos. 2313, 2552, 2522 & 2759 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No. 2313 of 2011 Jagtar Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 2. CWP No. 2552 of 2011 Nachhatar Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 3. CWP No. 2522 of 2011 Jafar Ali ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 4. CWP No. 2759 of 2011 Rajinder Kaur ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents Date of decision : 25.02.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Palwinder Singh , Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for the respondents **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated writ petitions pertaining to the same Gram Panchayat, vide this common order, to avoid the repetition. However, the factual CWP Nos. 2313, 2552, 2522 & 2759 of 2011 -2- matrix, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy involved in these writ petitions, has been extracted from (1) CWP No. 2313 of 2011 titled as Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, in this context. 2. The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petitions and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of General Gram Panchayat election, petitioners were elected as Panches and Gurjinder Singh was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Ikoloha, Block Khanna, District Ludhiana, in view of the provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein after referred to be as “the Act”). 3. The petitioners claimed that as they opposed the misdeeds of the Sarpanch, therefore, they were illegally removed from their respective posts of Panches on the ground that they did not attend the meetings of the Gram Panchayat on 17.12.2008, 30.12.2008 & 04.03.2009 and on political consideration, by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab (respondent No. 2) (for brevity “the Director”), vide impugned order dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure P3). 4. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P3), the appeals filed by the petitioners were also dismissed as well, by the Financial Commissioner-cum- Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat, Department, Punjab (respondent No. 1) (Appellate Authority), by means of impugned order dated 12.07.2010 (Annexure P8) 5. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petitions, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P3 & P8), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. That is how I am seized of the matter. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through CWP Nos. 2313, 2552, 2522 & 2759 of 2011 -3- the record, with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petitions deserve to be partly accepted, in this regard. 7. As is evident from the record, that petitioners were removed from their respective posts of Panches on the ground that they did not attend the meetings of the Gram Panchayat on 17.12.2008, 30.12.2008 & 04.03.2009. On the contrary, the perusal of extracts of proceedings books would reveal that all the petitioners attended the meeting on 17.12.2008 (Annexure P5).Likewise, petitioners (except Rajinder Kaur) attended the meeting on 30.12.2008 (Annexure P6). Similarly, petitioners (except Jafer Ali) attended the meeting on 04.03.2009 (Annexure P7). 9. Not only that, the petitioners have duly explained in their respective detailed replies (Annexure P2) that they have actually attended the meetings, for which they have been removed. They have also reiterated their stands in the grounds of appeal (Annexure P4) but neither respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 1 (Appellate Authority) adhere to and completely ignored their stands, for the reasons best known to them. That means, it stands proved on the record that petitioners have attended the meetings in question(Annexures P5 to P7), in the manner indicated herein above but still they were removed in that context. 10. Such, thus being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this case is whether the petitioners could be removed as Panches, in the present set of circumstances or not? 11. Having regards to the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, the answer is in the negative and petitioners could not legally be removed from their respective posts of Panches, on the grounds mentioned in the impugned orders (Annexures P3 & P8) CWP Nos. 2313, 2552, 2522 & 2759 of 2011 -4- 12. As is clear, Section 20 (1) (d) & (f) postulates that The Director, may, after such enquiry as he may deem fit, remove any Sarpanch or Panch, who, without reasonable cause, absents himself for more than two consecutive months from the meetings of the Gram Panchayat; or whose continuance in office is undesirable in the interests of the public. Proviso to this Section further posits that before the Director orders the removal of any Sarpanch or Panch under this sub-section, the reasons for the proposed removal shall be communicated to him and he shall be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing. 13. A conjoint reading of these provisions would reveal that a Sarpanch or Panch can only be removed after he absents himself for more than two consecutive months from the meetings of the Gram Panchayat without reasonable cause or whose continuance in office is undesirable in the interests of public, and not otherwise. 14 As indicated earlier, no cogent evidence is forthcoming on record to prove that either the petitioners have absented for more than two consecutive months from the meetings of the Gram Panchayat without reasonable cause or how and in what manner their continuation in office is undesirable in the interests of public. Moreover, the Director was required to issue show cause notice and to consider their explanation before passing the removal order. Therefore, all the legal essential ingredients are totally lacking in the instant case. The petitioners have duly explained and mentioned in their separate replies (Annexure P2) and grounds of appeal (Annexure P4) that they have attended the indicated meetings but their replies were neither considered by respondent No. 2 nor by respondent No. 1 (Appellate Authority). 15. What is not disputed here is that, in the wake of complaint dated 10.02.2009 (Annexure P1), a criminal case was registered against the Sarpanch of CWP Nos. 2313, 2552, 2522 & 2759 of 2011 -5- the Gram Panchayat and others by the police of Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Khanna , on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B IPC, vide F.I.R No. 217 dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P9), the conclusion report of which is as under:- “From the inquiry of the above application DSP Khanna has come to the conclusion that it has been proved that Sarpanch Gurjinder Singh, Ranjit Singh Panch and Vikas Batta, Panchayat Secretary Village Ikoloha, in connivance with each other, has forged the signature of applicant Harbans Singh in the proceeding book, to complete the quorum, in the meetings dated 28.11.09, 15.12.09, 21.12.09, 5.1.10, 1.11.10, 22.1.10, 3.2.10, 24.2.10, 3.3.10, 21.3.10 and 7.4.2010. Therefore it is recommended that an FIR under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC be registered against Sarpanch Gurjinder Singh, Panch Ranjit Singh and Panchayat Secretary Vikas Batta of village Ikoloha, Police Station Sadar Khanna and it is also recommended that if during investigation any evidence comes against Rajinder Kaur Bal Panch and Paramjit Kaur Panch r/o Ikoloha, then action be taken against them also. Report is being presented. Sd/- DSP Khanna dated 22.10.10. After perusing the report of DSP, SSP has written SHO SDR Khanna to register the case and investigate. Sd/- SSP Khanna dated 27.10.10”. 16. All these vital aspects of the matter have been completely ignored with impunity by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, at the time of passing the impugned orders (Annexures P3 & P8). 17. In the same sequence, this matter can be viewed from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that petitioners have filed the detailed replies (Annexure P2) to the show cause notice, issued to them, inter alia, depicted that they have attended the indicated meetings of the Gram Panchayat. Their presence in the meetings have also been mentioned in the record (Annexures P5 to P7). They have also reiterated their stands in the grounds of appeal (Annexure P4), but the same were not considered either by respondent No. 1 or by respondent No. 2. In this manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P3& P8) are non-speaking, non- CWP Nos. 2313, 2552, 2522 & 2759 of 2011 -6- reasoned orders and are the result of lack of application of mind in this regard. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ought to have discussed the material on record and were legally required to record valid reasons for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in the right perspective. Such statutory authority, exercising the powers under the Act, should act independently instead of functioning as a representative of the State/Panchayat department. It is now well settled principle of law that every action of such authority must be informed by reasons. The order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because important and democratic valuable rights of the parties are involved. 18. Sequelly, exhibiting the importance of passing speaking and reasoned order, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009) 4Supreme Court Cases 240 has held (para 8) as under : - “The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasijudicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.” Meaning thereby, all the essential ingredients/requirements of the rule of law and valid reasons are completely lacking in the present case. 19. Therefore, thus, seen from any angle, the impugned orders (Annexures P3 & P8) cannot legally be maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. To me, interest of justice would be sub-served if the matter is remanded back to CWP Nos. 2313, 2552, 2522 & 2759 of 2011 -7- the Director (respondent No. 2) to consider all the aspects of the matter. 20. 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 hearing of the appeal, the instant writ petitions are accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders (Annexures P3 & P8) are hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the Director (respondent No.2), to decide the matter afresh, in view of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law and not otherwise. 21. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Director (respondent No. 2) on 30.3.2011 for further proceedings. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge February 25, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No