LPA No. 1446 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1446 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.02.2011. Ranjeet Singh Panch ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : None for the appellant. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the respondents. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Same was the position yesterday i.e. on 14.02.2011. In the above circumstances we have looked into the Memorandum of Appeal as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.09.2010. We have also considered the averments made in the writ petition. Accordingly, final orders in the appeal are being passed. By the impugned order dated 24.09.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3230 of 2010, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner as LPA No. 1446 of 2010 [2] infructuous. It may be noticed at this stage that the challenge in the writ petition was against an order dated 21.12.2009 placing the appellant-writ petitioner, a Sarpanch, under suspension. The said order dated 21.12.2009 was affirmed in appeal by an order dated 25.01.2010. The learned Single Judge took the view that as the enquiry against the petitioner has been completed in the meantime and removal order has been passed, nothing survives for consideration in the writ petition. The grounds of appeal, which we have perused, would indicate that at the time of admission of the writ petition, there was an interim order dated 23.02.2010 staying the operation of the orders dated 21.12.2009 and 25.01.2010 (Annexures P-7 and P-8). On the said basis, it is contended that the direction for holding of an enquiry against the appellant-writ petitioner, as contained in the order dated 25.01.2010 (Annexure P-8), had remained suspended and, therefore, the holding of the enquiry including the order of removal passed on the basis thereof is contrary to the aforesaid interim order of the Court. Having perused the order dated 25.01.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh; the challenge made in the writ petition and the grounds of challenge, we are unable to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner. The challenge in the writ petition was against the suspension orders dated 21.12.2009 and 25.01.2010. Though, by the interim order dated 23.2.2010 operation of both the orders was stayed, LPA No. 1446 of 2010 [3] what was really intended by the aforesaid interim order was stay of the suspension of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge, while passing the interim order dated 23.02.2010, did not and could not have intended to go beyond the prayers made in the writ petition and order for stay of the enquiry against the appellant. The said enquiry having been completed and the orders for removal having been passed we do not see as to how the learned Single Judge could have come to the conclusion that the issue with regard to the suspension of the appellant-writ petitioner was subsisting any longer for adjudication. Consequently, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal deserves to be dismissed by refusing admission. It is ordered accordingly. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 15.02.2011 'ravinder'