CWP No.5386 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.5386 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.3.2010 Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 4th January, 2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab, whereby he was suspended from the post of Sarpanch, as also order dated 1st February, 2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nikku Chak, District Hoshiarpur. A complaint was made against him that on 8th November, 2008 certain poplar trees belonging to the Gram Panchayat were cut by one Balbir Singh in the presence of the petitioner. An inquiry was, thus, ordered against the petitioner. After receipt of the inquiry report, Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab issued notice to the petitioner vide letter No.6/91/08- CWP No.5386 of 2010 2 Hoshiarpur-S/14966 dated 4.8.2009 asking the petitioner to file his reply. The petitioner thereafter sought number of adjournments before the said authority. He, however, merely submitted that he had been falsely implicated due to political pressure. The Director, finding the allegations to be serious, directed that the petitioner be placed under suspension in exercise of power under Section 20 (4) of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority i.e. Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department on 1st February, 2010. The Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that poplar trees were standing in the Shamlat land and petitioner cut the same in connivance with one Balbir Singh. However, while dismissing the appeal he observed that the decision would not effect regular inquiry pending against the appellant and directed the Inquiry Officer to complete the same within three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that finding of the Inquiry Officer as well as the authorities below are palpably wrong. According to the counsel, the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to factionalism in the village and political pressure exerted by the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Admittedly, the trees in question were grown and standing CWP No.5386 of 2010 3 in the Shamlat land belonging to Gram Panchayat of village Nikku Chak. The said trees were cut by one Balbir Singh. In the inquiry conducted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, it was found that the trees were cut in connivance with the petitioner. Acting on the basis of the inquiry report, respondent No.2 decided to place the petitioner under suspension. This order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned orders. The fact that the trees in question were in Shamlat land and the same were cut illegally, is not disputed. Only argument raised by the counsel is that the complaint is motivated and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. In my considered view, this is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction of this court. Since only factual averments have been made, no finding can be returned thereon. The appellate authority has already directed the Inquiry Officer to conclude the regular inquiry within three months. It appears that the petitioner will get ample opportunity to raise factual pleas before the Inquiry Officer during the course of regular inquiry. I, thus, find no merit in this writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 26.3.2010 'rajpal'