CWP No. 12209 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 12209 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.7.2011 Promila Devi ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.NPS Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.7.2011 (Annexure P-10). Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was elected as a sarpanch of the gram panchayat in the elections held in June, 2003. The petitioner completed her term in the year 2008. At that time, the total members of the gram panchayat were nine. A false complaint was made against the petitioner and an enquiry was entrusted to respondent No.4, who forwarded the same to respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 directed that the spot be inspected by Panchayat Officer and demarcation be got conducted. CWP No. 12209 of 2011 2 The AC Grade II, Anandpur Sahib directed the revenue staff to conduct demarcation of khasra No.28//24, 28//19, 22, 23. As per the jamabandi for the year 2003-04, the said khasra numbers were in the ownership of the gram panchayat and the same was entered as gair mumkin dariya. In the report it was stated that small bushes were present at the spot and the river was flowing. In the said report nothing was mentioned that the trees had been removed from the spot. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.5 wrote to respondent No.4 that the trees had been felled from shamlat land and the stumps of the trees were projecting from the ground at the spot. The petitioner had not been associated at the time of spot inspection. Respondent No.4 vide report dated 3.1.2008 (Annexure P-5), held that the petitioner was not fit to continue on the post of sarpanch. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 25.8.2008 (Annexure P-6). The Director without considering the pleas raised by the petitioner ordered her removal vide order dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure P-7) and it was further held that the petitioner would be debarred from participating in the elections for the next five years and shall make good the loss suffered by the gram panchayat by initiating proceedings under Section 216 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide order dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure P-8). Respondent No.2 was directed to pass a fresh order after considering the pleas raised by the petitioner in appeal. Respondent No.2, in stead of passing a fresh order on the basis of the pleadings raised by the parties, ordered that a fresh enquiry be conducted against the CWP No. 12209 of 2011 3 petitioner vide order dated 12.7.2010 (Annexure P-9). The petitioner submitted her reply stating therein that the enquiry had already been conducted against the petitioner and there was no need for conducting a fresh enquiry. Respondent No.2 had now marked a regular enquiry against the petitioner to respondent No.3 and vide letter dated 28.6.2011, the petitioner has been asked to join the enquiry proceedings. Vide letter dated 4.7.2011 (Annexure P-10), respondent No.5 wrote to the petitioner to join the enquiry proceedings on 12.7.2011. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no occasion for respondent No.2 to order a fresh enquiry as vide order dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure P-8), respondent No.2 had merely been directed to pass a fresh speaking order on the basis of the pleadings raised by the petitioner in appeal. Moreover, the term of the petitioner as a sarpanch had expired in May, 2008 and the elections for new panchayat were held on 26.6.2008. Charge was taken from the petitioner in the month of March, 2008. No fresh enquiry could be initiated and the same had been ordered with an attempt to initiate proceedings under Section 216 of the Act after delay. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner was removed from the post of sarpanch vide order dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure P-7) by Director Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab on the allegations that the petitioner had cut and removed the trees from the panchayat CWP No. 12209 of 2011 4 land and had, thus, caused loss to the panchayat. Vide the said order, it was ordered that the petitioner shall make good the loss caused by her to the panchayat as per the provisions of Section 216 of the Act. The petitioner was also debarred from contesting the elections in the next five years. The said order was set aside in appeal by Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Punjab Rural Development and Panchayats Department vide order dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure P-8) . The case was remanded back to the Director Rural Development and Panchayats Department for a fresh decision after considering the arguments raised by the petitioner in appeal and perusal of the concerned record. On remand the petitioner has again been directed to associate in the enquiry proceedings. Apparently, respondent No.2 on remand must have felt it appropriate to conduct a fresh enquiry in view of the pleas raised by the petitioner in appeal. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of initiation of fresh enquiry against her as she will be able to put up her case afresh in the enquiry proceedings. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 14, 2011 anita