CWP No.9045 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.9045 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.5.2010 Dalbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has preferred a writ petition in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 9th November, 2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.1, whereby he decided to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Panch. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No.4 was placed under suspension in view of certain allegations levelled against him by the petitioner in a complaint preferred by him. Due to this reason, he was placed under suspension by a well reasoned order passed by the Director Panchayat (respondent No.2) but the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) had reinstated respondent No.4 without assigning any cogent reason and thus, the said order deserves to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. CWP No.9045 of 2010 2 It appears that petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No.4 making the certain allegations of illegal occupation of Panchayat land. Respondent No.4 was thereafter placed under suspension vide order dated 16th July, 2009 (Annexure P-4). He, however, preferred an appeal against said order. The Financial Commissioner acting on the basis of an inquiry report, submitted by Block Development and Panchayat Officer came to the conclusion that charge against respondent No.4 was not proved and thus, it would not be appropriate to keep him under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any legal infirmity with the impugned order. Once prima facie charge against respondent No.4 was not proved, there could hardly be any ground to keep him under suspension. Regular inquiry against respondent No.4 is still pending. A direction has already been given by respondent No.1 for concluding the same within a period of three months. I, thus, find no ground to interfere in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 17.5.2010 'rajpal'