CWP No. 16312 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16312 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.09.2011 Paramjit Kaur, Panch ..Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Anureet S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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? ALOK SINGH J. (ORAL) Notice of motion. 2. On being asked, Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has accepted notice on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. Petitioner is an elected Panch of Village Gram Panchayat Dyalgarh Jejian, Block Sunam, District Sangrur. First Information Report (FIR) No. 150 dated 3.11.2008 was registered in Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur against the petitioner, alleging that she was found in possession of 20 Kgs. of poppy-husk (Narcotics). She was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.12.2008 under Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter CWP No. 16312 of 2011 2 .. mentioned as “1994 Act”). Petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the suspension order dated 18.12.2008. The appeal was accepted by Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, Mohali (respondent No.2), reinstating the petitioner on the post of Panch, saying that the order of reinstatement shall not effect regular enquiry pending against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from the post of Panch vide impugned order dated 6.1.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 by exercising powers provided under Section 20(1)(a) of the 1994 Act. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have fairly accepted that till day, no conviction has been passed against the petitioner and trial has yet not concluded. There is no material before this Court to say that the petitioner was convicted under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”) pursuant to the registration of FIR No. 150 dated 3.11.2008 against the petitioner. In view of the admitted fact that no conviction has been passed as yet against the petitioner, the question arises for consideration before this Court is – As to whether the petitioner can be removed from the post of Panch under Section 20(1)(a) of the 1994 Act during the pendency of criminal trial? Section 20(1)(a) of 1994 Act reads as under :- “20. Suspension and removal of Panch and Sarpanch - (1). The Director, may, after such enquiry as he may deem fit, remove any Sarpanch or Panch : - (a). on any of the grounds mentioned in section 208; or xx xx xx xxx xx” CWP No. 16312 of 2011 3 .. 5. Section 208 (1) (c) of the 1994 Act reads as under :- 208. Disqualification for Membership - (1). A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a Panchayat if, - xx xx xx xxx xx (c). has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude or an offence implying of any defect of a Sarpanch or Panch of Gram Panchayat or member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his conviction; or xx xx xx xxx xx” 6. In the opinion of this Court, from a combined reading of Section 20(1)(a) and Section 208(1)(c) of the 1994 Act, the only interpretation would be that if a Sarpanch/Panch is found guilty and has been convicted for any offence involving moral turpitude or for such offence i.e., forgery in the Panchayat's record, embezzlement of Panchayat funds etc. etc. when it would not be desirable in the interest of Panchayat to permit such Panch or Sarpanch to perform the duties of Panch or Sarpanch, then it would be disqualification under Section 208(1)(c) and is liable to be removed under Section 20(1)(a) of the 1994 Act. However, if no conviction order is passed then disqualification as provided under Section 208(1)(c) of the 1994 Act, shall not be attracted. Therefore, the removal order passed against the petitioner is not only without jurisdiction but also beyond the scope of Section 20(1)(a) of the 1994 Act. 7. Now, question arises if removal order goes, whether the petitioner should be continued under suspension in view of Section CWP No. 16312 of 2011 4 .. 20(3) of the 1994 Act? Section 20(3) of the 1994 Act reads as under:- “20. Suspension and removal of Panch and Sarpanch- (3). The Director may suspend any Sarpanch or Panch where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry 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.” 8. In the opinion of this Court, having possession of any narcotic substance is a serious offence and amounts to moral turpitude. Elected Sarpanch/Panch represents the society and they are the elected representatives and role-model of the habitants of the village, therefore, they are supposed not to indulge in any criminal activities, more so, in offence punishable under the NDPS Act. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case where removal order (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 is liable to be quashed, however, the petitioner shall remain under suspension during the pendency of the investigation/trial, as the case may be. 9. Petition is allowed, impugned order, (Annexure P/1) is quashed, however, the petitioner shall remain under suspension during the investigation/trial, as the case may be. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 02.09.2011 som