CWP No.14722 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14722 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.08.2010 Tejbalkar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. P.S. Khurana, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the learned Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, and affirmed by the learned appellate authority, vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be suspended from the post of panch on account of his involvement in a criminal case under Sections 307, 324, 341 and 348 IPC. The impugned order reads as under: - “This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab vide which he was placed under suspension from the post of Panch, under Section 20(6) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. During hearing of the appeal, the appellant told that the case which was registered against him, the same is totally wrong and in party friction of the village is involved. Prem Singh, a Panch of the village had become wounded in road accident on 13/14.7.2008. But they put its allegation on the appellant previous Sarpanch of the village is straightway responsible, for it. In the Hospital, prescription slip which was prepared by the doctors, in the same, road accident is mentioned. All this has happened in a pre-planned CWP No.14722 of 2010 -2- conspiracy. In this way, on the basis of this case, placing him under suspension is not proper according to law. Therefore, order for placing him under suspension be dismissed and he be reinstated on the post of Panch. Law Officer, present on behalf of Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab stated that a case under Section 307, 324, 341, 348 IPC was registered against the appellant and this case is going on, in the lower court. The appellant who is a member of Panchayat, due to his having attacked on the other panch, a case has been registered against him. Section 307 IPC is a serious offence and detail of this section is as follows: - 307. Attempt of murder: -whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description from a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable to (Imprisonment for life) or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Under Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Director has the power that in case any criminal case is registered against any Panch or sarpanch, such person can be placed under suspension from the post. Therefore, suspension of the appellant has been made, totally correct. Thus, his this appeal be dismissed. After hearing the arguments of both the parties. This conclusion is worked out that a case under section 307, 324, 341, 348 and 349 was registered against the appellant and this case is going on, in the lower court. The case registered against the appellant is covered under Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, according to which the Director can place any Sarpanch or Panch, under suspension against whom criminal case is registered and whose investigation is going on. In the regular inquiry conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development) Patiala, the appellant has himself admitted that he remained in police custody from 12.11.2008 to 16.11.2008 and in Patiala Jail from 17.11.2008 to 4.3.2009. Therefore, the allegation leveled against him that a criminal case is registered against him is fully proved. Under CWP No.14722 of 2010 -3- section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Director has the full authority that in case any criminal case is registered against Panch or Sarpanch or may be under investigation then he can be placed under suspension In the opinion of Director, allegations leveled against those persons or the proceedings going on against them causes hindrance in the performance of their responsibilities. This case, against the Panch, has been registered for attacking on another panch. Under section 307(1) of CrPC, its punishment can be fine & upto life imprisonment. Therefore, placing of the appellant under suspension is fully correct and in this way, there is no necessity of causing any hindrance in the orders of suspension issued by the director. Thus, his this appeal is dismissed.” The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that in terms of Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, an offence involving moral turpitude or which is likely to cause embarrassment to the panch/sarpanch in performance of duty, can only be the basis for suspension of panch/sarpanch and not otherwise. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the word “may” used in Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, envisages that it is for the Director to form an opinion before ordering suspension, that the criminal case registered against the party is likely to cause embarrassment, to the person. This can only be done, after the party has been given an opportunity of hearing. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that order of Director is outcome of non-application of mind, as he presumed, that no reply to the show cause notice was filed, whereas reply was filed disclosing therein, that it was a case of false implication, in order to restrain the petitioner from performing the duties of elected CWP No.14722 of 2010 -4- office. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that this action is mala fide as earlier an attempt was made against the petitioner and one Manjit Singh, to debar them from participating in the proceedings by registering a case. The respondents could not succeed in the attempt to debar the petitioner, from participating in view of the intervention of the higher authorities. Thereafter, this method was adopted to suspend the petitioner so as to debar him from functioning as panch of the gram panchayat. In support of the contentions raised the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Zarina Vs. State of Haryana through Financial Commissioner and another, 2004(3) PLR 422, Chand Vs. Special Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Rural Dev. & Panchayats Deptt., Chandigarh and others, 2004(3) PLR 881, wherein this Court has laid down, that before suspending an elected representative of the people, strict compliance of rule of natural justice is must. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 276, wherein this Court held, that the expression “opportunity of being heard” in Section 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, has to be interpreted as to enable the sarpanch or panch to effectively defend himself against the proposed action. This Court further held, that sarpanch/panch is to be informed of specific allegations and material in support thereof. In short, the CWP No.14722 of 2010 -5- Hon'ble Division Bench laid down that principles of natural justice have to be strictly complied with before taking action against the sarpanch/panch under Sections 51(3) and 175(q) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the medical evidence produced on record of the criminal case, clearly establishes that it was a case of road accident, and the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case under Sections 307, 324, 341 and 348 IPC. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 reads as under: - “20. Suspension and removal of Panch and Sarpanch. - (1) x x x x (2) x x x x x (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.” Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 gives power to the Director to suspend the 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 framed or proceeding taken against him, are likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties, or involves moral turpitude or defect of character. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been charged in a case registered under Sections 307, 324, 341 and 348 IPC. CWP No.14722 of 2010 -6- The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 323 was pleased to lay down, that allegations under Section 307 IPC are serious in nature and, therefore, the order passed by the authorities, suspending a panch/sarpanch under Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court laying down, that, registration of case under Section 307 IPC is likely to embarrass the panch/sarpanch in discharge of his duties. The decision being of Hon'ble Division Bench is binding on this Court. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the contentions raised, cannot be disputed, that a person is entitled to be heard before an order is passed. The petitioner appeared before the Director, as well as the appellate authority. The reading of the order, passed by the appellate authority would show that the matter has been considered. It was not for the authorities under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, to give an opinion on the merit of the criminal case, registered against the person. It is only in case where the action is proposed to be taken on the administrative side under the Panchayati Raj Act, that all the documents necessary are required to be given to the petitioner, for defending his case, as held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another (supra). The reading of Section 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, shows that the registration of case involving serious offences, itself is a ground for suspension of panch/sarpanch. CWP No.14722 of 2010 -7- Once it is not disputed that the petitioner was facing trial under Sections 307, 324, 341 and 348 IPC, no error has been committed by the authorities in suspending the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of the Act. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 18, 2010 R.S.