CWP No. 3894 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3894 of 2010 Date of decision : 17.02.2011 Baldev Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. M.K. Sajjan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos 1 & 2. Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No. 3 **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted for the reasons mentioned herein below. 2. As is evident from the record that in the wake of General Gram Panchayat election, Mangal Singh son of Hardeep Singh (respondent No. 3 ) was elected as Member Panchayat of the Gram Panchayt of Village Saindan Mauzan, in the month of June,2008, in view of the provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein after referred to be as “the Act”). He was convicted and sentenced in a criminal case by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.03.2009 (Annexure P1). In pursuance of the complaint dated 16.3.2009 (Annexure P2) filed by the petitioner Baldev Singh, The Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab CWP No. 3894 of 2010 -2- (respondent No.2) issued show cause notice to respondent No. 3 to which he filed the reply (Annexure P3). After taking into consideration the entire material on record, respondent No. 2 suspended respondent No 3 from the post of Panch, in exercise of his power under Section 20 of the Act, by means of order dated 27.08.2009 (Annexure P4). 3. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P4), respondent No. 3 filed the appeal without impleading the complainant-petitioner as a party, which was accepted by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh(respondent No. 1), by way of order dated 04.01.2010 (Annexure P5). 4. What is not disputed here is that respondent No. 3 was suspended by respondent No.2 on the complaint of the petitioner but respondent No. 3 filed the appeal without impleading the petitioner as a party. Meaning thereby, since petitioner was the aggrieved party, so, respondent No. 1 slipped into an legal error in accepting the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 even without issuing notice to the petitioner, who was a necessary party, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order (Annexure P5) is illegal, arbitrary and against the statutory provisions but against the principles of natural justice as well, has considerable force and the contrary arguments of learned counsel for respondents “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled. In this manner, the ex parte order (Anexure P5) passed by respondent No. 1 cannot legally be maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 5. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the appeal, the writ petition is accepted. The impugned order (Annexure P5) is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to respondent No. 1 (appellate authority) to decide the appeal afresh, after impleading and CWP No. 3894 of 2010 -3- affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-complainant by passing a speaking order and in accordance with law. 6. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the appellate authority (respondent No.1) on 27.03.201 for further proceedings. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge February 17, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No