CWP No. 8824 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 8.7.2011 CWP No. 8824 of 2011 Karamjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CWP No. 8839 of 2011 Karamjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Vide this order, CWP Nos. 8824 and 8839 of 2011 will be disposed of as similar controversy is involved in these petitions. Petitioners along with Hakam Singh were elected as panches. Thereafter, Hakam Singh was elected as a sarpanch of the gram panchayat. A complaint was filed against Hakam Singh and CWP No. 8824 of 2011 2 Raj Rani that they had not deposited the rent qua the shops given on rent with the panchayat. Hakam Singh had prepared a forged resolution dated 5.12.2008. Raj Rani and her husband had illegally encroached upon shop No.81. Hakam Singh was not performing his duties for the welfare and development of the village and had misappropriated the funds of the panchayat. An enquiry was conducted by Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala with regard to the allegations levelled against sarpanch Hakam Singh and panch Raj Rani. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report (Annexure P-1) and held that charges No.1 to 3 and 5 were proved against sarpanch Hakam Singh and panch Raj Rani. Deputy Director (complaints) for Director Panchayat vide order dated 4.1.2011 (Annexure P-3) ordered the suspension of sarpanch Hakam Singh and panch Raj Rani. Aggrieved by the said order sarpanch Hakam Singh and panch Raj Rani preferred appeals and the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Government Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh allowed the appeals filed by sarpanch Hakam Singh and panch Raj Rani vide orders dated 21.2.2011 (Annexure P-5) Hence, the present petitions by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the sarpanch as well as the panch were guilty of serious misconduct and hence, the appellate Court had erred in re-instating them vide the impugned orders dated 21.2.2011. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions are devoid of any merit and deserve to be dismissed. CWP No. 8824 of 2011 3 In the present case, allegation against sarpanch Harnek Singh is that he had prepared a forged resolution dated 5.12.2008 and the rent qua shops taken by him had not been deposited. Although enquiry officer gave the report that the charge No.1 (regarding non payment of rent), charge No.2 (preparation of forged resolution dated 5.12.2008 and charge No.5 (to the effect that the work for the welfare and development of the village had not been done by the sarpanch and he had misappropriated the income of the panchayat) stood proved against Hakam Singh sarpanch but the appellate authority had observed that the shops were taken by sarpanch Hakam Singh in an open auction for ten years in the year 1992 and the rent had been duly deposited by him and there was nothing on record at this stage to establish that the resolution dated 5.12.2008 was forged. The development work of the village had been carried out after taking assessment from the Junior Engineer and after entering the same in the measurement book. Moreover, regular enquiry is still pending and in case sarpanch Hakam Singh is found guilty of the charges levelled against him in the regular enquiry, then action will be taken against him. So far as Raj Rani panch is concerned, the enquiry officer held that charge No.3 (qua illegal encroachment of shop No.81) was proved against her but the appellate authorityhad found that the husband of petitioner Raj Rani had taken the shop on chakota and since a dispute arose qua possession, he was not handed over the possession of the shop. In these circumstances, it was held by the appellate authority that the allegation that Raj Rani had encroached upon shop No.81 was wrong. Regular departmental enquiry is, CWP No. 8824 of 2011 4 however,being conducted against panch Raj Rani. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellate authority has, thus, rightly came to the conclusion that sarpanch Hakam Singh and panch Raj Rani should be allowed to continue to work on their posts as they are duly elected representatives of the people. Suspension of an elected representative of public is a very serious matter. Regular enquiries are pending against them and in case they are found guilty then action will be taken against them in accordance with law. Accordingly, these petition are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 08, 2011 anita