CWP No. 13941 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13941 of 2010 Date of Decision: 09.08.2010 Balsher Singh ...Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma, J . The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 17.5.2010, passed by the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide which appeal filed by Gajjan Singh, Member Panchayat, against his CWP No. 13941 of 2010 2 suspension was accepted. The petitioner/complainant had filed a complaint against Gajjan Singh, Member Panchayat, on account of pendency of Criminal Case under sections 457, 380 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of Gajjan Singh, Member Panchayat, was that this case has been falsely registered due to party faction in the village and that it did not fall within the purview of moral turpitude. Learned Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary held, that allegations levelled against the Panch did not fall under section 20 (3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act) and ordered his reinstatement. Section 20(1) (e) of the Act reads as under: “20. Suspension and removal of Panch and Sarpach.-- (1) The Director may, after such enquiry as he may deem fit, remove any Sarpanch or Panch:- (a) xx xx (b) xx xx (c) xx xx (d) xx xx (e) who during his present term of office or that immediately preceding it, has, in the opinion of the Director, been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties;” Reading of Section 20 (1) (c) of the Act would show, that it is CWP No. 13941 of 2010 3 the discretion vested with the Director to remove any Sarpanch or Panch who during his present term of office or that immediately preceding it, has, in the opinion of the Director, been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties. Under Section 20 (3) of the Act again discretion is granted to the Director to suspend a Sarpanch or Panch where case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial if,in the opinion of the Director, the charge made or proceeding taken against him is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character. Before a person is ordered to be suspended pending inquiry the Director is to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of each case and is not to suspend a Panch or Sarpanch merely on the complaint or registration of the case. Once the authorities under the Act on consideration prima facie find that continuation of the Panch or Sarpanch is not likely to embarrass him in discharge of his duties keeping in view the allegations, the complainant, therefore, cannot challenge the impugned order by invoking the writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order by placing reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Surat Singh Sarpanch Vs. Commissioner and secretary to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh and Ors. 1987 PLJ 616, wherein the suspension order passed against the Sarpanch for misappropriation of Panchayat fund was upheld. CWP No. 13941 of 2010 4 Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case of Kailash Sharma Vs. Commissioner and secretary to Government Haryana 1998 (4) RCR Civil 156, wherein again in writ petition filed by a Sarpanch against his suspension on account of registration of FIR involving moral turpitude was dismissed. Reliance thereafter was placed on the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 323, wherein again writ petition filed by the aggrieved party against his suspension was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally placed reliance on the Fill Bench judgment of this court in the case of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 170 to contend that the petitioner being complainant was a person aggrieved and therefore was competent to maintain the writ petition. Plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Saktu Ram Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors. 1988 PLJ 379, wherein Hon'ble Full Bench laid down that suspension is purely a discretion vested in the Director and the complainant does not come into picture at all when the inquiry is initiated on the basis of the complaint. Complainant cannot ask as of right to suspend the sarpanch, pending inquiry as the complainant has no legal or vested right to get order of suspension made by the Director nor any notice is required to be issued to the complainant. The judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Saktu CWP No. 13941 of 2010 5 Ram Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors. was not overruled by the Full Bench in the case of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. relied upon by the petitioner. Reading of both the Full Bench judgments show, that complainant being aggrieved person though can file a complaint and pursue the remedy under the Act but he cannot challenge the order of revocation of suspension by the authorities, as he does not have locus standi to challenge the reinstatement of Panch/Sarpanch. For the reasons stated, finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed. 09.08.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge