IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.544 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 Rajinder Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate, for respondents No.6 and 7. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who was Sarpanch of Gram panchayat of Village Damheri, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib since 2003 till the recent election held in July, 2008, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the letter dated 1.10.2007 issued by respondent No.4 being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is the case of the petitioner that on the complaint filed by respondent No.6, an enquiry has been entrusted to the Vigilance Bureau and the Vigilance Bureau has issued notice for production of the record C.W.P. No.544 of 2008 -2- vide impugned letter. It is further the case of the petitioner that such enquiry against the Sarpanch cannot be inquired or looked into by the Vigilance Bureau, as the Government itself had decided that the competent authority to go into such matters would be the office of Director, Panchayats. It is also the case of the petitioner that whole action has been initiated on account of change in government, which is illegal and contrary to the government instructions. Pursuant to notice, a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 in which it has been stated that since the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat had not found anything in the complaint, therefore, the Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab vide letter dated 21.11.2007 was requested to close the said enquiry. Even otherwise, the government instructions dated 22.2.1983 and 2.1.1995 have not been disputed. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents and the instructions issued by the State Government, the Vigilance Bureau is not competent to proceed with the enquiry. Therefore, they are restrained from further proceeding in the enquiry. However, it will be open for the Director, Panchayats to inquire into the matter and proceed if there is any necessity in this regard. Disposed of. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 26, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE