Civil Writ Petition No.22218 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 7.1.2011 Gursahib Singh son of Tara Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.D.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of election, Balwant Kaur (respondent No.4) was duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Muradwala Dal Singh, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, as per the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Petitioner Gursahib Singh and other residents of the village filed a complaint (Annexure P1) against her on the ground that on 4.9.2008, she had got uprooted one Shisham (Tahli) tree, standing in the Government High School and illegally sold the same. During the course of inquiry, she was suspended by respondent No.2, vide order dated 13.8.2009 and regular inquiry was entrusted to Additional Deputy Commissioner (D) Ferozepur. He conducted the inquiry in a prudent manner and exonerated her (respondent No.4), vide report dated 26.7.2010 (Annexure P4). 2. Taking cognizance of the inquiry report (Annexure P4), the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab (respondent No.2) reinstated her (respondent No.4) on the post of Sarpanch, vide impugned order dated 27.7.2010 (Annexure P5). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P5), petitioner Gursahib Singh filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by respondent No.1, Civil Writ Petition No.22218 of 2010 2 by virtue of impugned order dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P6). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and filed the instant petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P5 and P6), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this regard. 6. As is evident from the record that the petitioner and others filed a complaint (Annexure P1) against the Sarpanch/private respondent only on the ground that on 4.9.2008, she got uprooted one Shisham (Tahli) tree and illegally sold the same. The matter was thoroughly enquired into by the Addl.Deputy Commissioner (D). Having examined the relevant revenue record and the statements of the parties, the ADC exonerated the Sarpanch/private respondent, vide inquiry report (Annexure P4), the operative part of which is as under:- “From the statements and proofs available on the record and inspection conducted by the under-signed by visiting the spot in the presence of witnesses, the under-signed has come to the conclusion that pit from where tahli has been uprooted is on land comprised in 60M/22, the ownership and cultivation of which is in the name of private owner Baldev Singh s/o Kartar Singh s/o Amar Singh as per Jamabandi for the year 2005-06. Therefore, the allegations levelled against Sarpanch Balwant Kaur, are not proved. Report is submitted for further action.” 7. What is not disputed here is that the private respondent-Sarpanch was suspended during the course of the indicated inquiry. Once she was exonerated from the false charges alleged against her by the competent authority, then, to me, respondent No.2 did not have any option, except to reinstate her on the post of Sarpanch. This is what, he has done, vide impugned order (Annexure P5) in this context. 8. Not only that, the matter was again re-examined by the Appellate Civil Writ Petition No.22218 of 2010 3 Authority (respondent No.1), which affirmed the impugned order (Annexure P5), by way of impugned order (Annexure P6). Therefore, to my mind, the authorities under the Act have rightly passed the impugned orders. Such well-articulated and well-reasoned orders cannot possibly be interfered with, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned orders by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 7.1.2011 Judge AS