CWP No.23556 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.23556 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 19, 2011 Parkaso Devi .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure P6) whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.3 under Section 20(6) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1995 has been accepted by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat Department and as such, respondent No.3 has been re-instated on the post of Sarpanch. The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab vide order dated 14.3.2011 had removed respondent No.3 from the post of Sarpanch and a ban had been imposed upon him from contesting elections for the next five years. While passing such order of removal from the post of Sarpanch upon respondent No.3, the regular enquiry conducted by the Divisional Deputy Director, Punjab, Patiala had been referred to. The Director, Rural Development and Punchayat, Punjab clearly held in the order that the charges against respondent No.3 regarding execution of earth work from the Panchayat fund as also giving an advertisement in the newspaper for the auction of the land stood proved. It is against such order CWP No.23556 of 2011 2 dated 14.3.2011 that respondent No.3 had preferred the appeal under Section 20(6) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1995. A glaring infirmity in the order dated 14.3.2011 by which respondent No.3 had been removed from the post of Sarpanch had been noticed. Factually, the detailed enquiry conducted by the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development, Punjab, Patiala and a report thereof, placed on record as Annexure P3, would show that the allegation pertaining to execution of earth work was not proved against this Sarpanch i.e. respondent No.3. It was only pertaining to allegation No.2 i.e. an amount of Rs.3,000/- having been spent on an advertisement, for which the Sarpanch had been called upon to deposit the same. That apart, vide impugned order, respondent No.1 has clearly noticed that even though the panchayat has not suffered any loss yet the appellant/respondent No.3 has deposited the amount of Rs.3,000/- in the panchayat fund incurred on the advertisement. Still further, it has been noticed in the impugned order that in the previous year i.e. 2007-08, the land had been given on chakota for an amount of Rs.66,000/- and for the year 2008-09 for Rs.76,000/-. On the other hand, for the year in question i.e. 2009-10, there has been heavy profit inasmuch as the land has been given on chakota for an amount of Rs.one lac. Order dated 30.5.2011, passed by respondent No.1, is a detailed and well-reasoned order. No interference thereof is called for. The petition is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE December 19, 2011 SRM Note: Whether referred to the Reporter? Yes/No