CWP NO.13658/2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP NO.13658/2007 Date of Decision: 27.8.2008. Bharat Ram Sarpanch ..........Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and another. . .........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Rajnish Gupta,Advocate for the petitioner. Mz. Kirti Singh,Assistant Advocate General,Haryana. JASWANT SINGH,J. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure P/8) vide which he has been suspended from the office of Sarpanch and the appellate order dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure P/13) vide which his appeal has been dismissed. Facts in brief are that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bir Dhandari, Block Nissing, District Karnal. It is stated that the petitioner was discharging his functions as Sarpanch with due dedication and sincerity. One Mehnga Singh son of Sohan Singh made a complaint alleging that petitioner on 4.5.2007 got conducted the auction of plot nos. 1 and 2, belonging to Gram Panchayat, for the year 2007, at his own house and illegally leased out the same in favour of his relatives or friends. On receipt of complaint, learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Karnal vide order dated 11.5.2007 (Annexure P/3), cancelled the auction CWP NO.13658/2007 2 dated 4.5.2007 and also got deposited Rs.1,70,000/- from the complainant as security and further ordered re-auction of the aforesaid plots. Thereafter, Deputy Commissioner, Karnal- respondent no.2 issued show cause dated 13.6.2007 (Annexure P/6) under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 1994 Act) to the petitioner for suspending him from the office of Sarpanch on the following allegations:- “That you have conducted the auction of shamlat land of Gram Panchayat for Rs.89,100/- in favour of dears by sitting at home instead at a public place. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Karnal vide order dated 11.5.2007 has cancelled auction and ordered re-auction. During intervening period, earlier lessee Shri Surjit Singh s/o Ram Kishan and Purushotam S/o Men Pal residents of Village Bir Dhandari have filed suit in Civil Courts. In which you have directly appeared in the court and did not apprise the court with the real position. In which, Court vide order dated 21.7.2007 has restrained the defendant from interfering and dispossessing from the land. Instead you had to contact with the Law Officer and to appear alongwith him for the purpose of proceedings which has not been done by you. Therefore, you have caused loss to the panchayat and misused your post.” Petitioner filed his reply dated 22.6.2007 stating therein that the auction held on 4.5.2007 of the two plots (shamlat land) of the Gram Panchayat was conducted at a School in the presence of Social Education CWP NO.13658/2007 3 and Panchayat Officer and all the Panches. In the said auction, those two plots were auctioned for Rs.89,100/- for the year 2007, whereas for the previous year the lease amount was Rs.81,700/-. It was denied that the petitioner had caused any loss to the Gram Panchayat or had favoured in any way to his relatives or friends. It was also stated that the order dated 11.5.2007, cancelling the auction and ordering re-auction of the the plots was sent to the office of B.D.P.O., vide endorsement dated 15.5.2007 and a letter dated 16.5.2007 was sent by the office of B.D.P.O., to the Gram Panchayat conveying the said decision. Before the re-auction could be conducted on 21.5.2007, the Pattedars/Lessees, who had succeeded in the auction conducted on 4.5.2007 filed a suit, before the learned Civil Judge, Karnal and were granted interim stay order dated 15.5.2007 restraining the respondents from interfering and dispossessing them till further orders and the case was adjourned to 24.7.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner on behalf of the Gram Panchayat moved an application, through Sh. J.S. Bangar, Advocate, for pre-ponement of the case, which was dismissed by the learned Court vide order dated 4.6.2007. The petitioner had also informed the higher officers i.e. S.D.O.,Karnal and B.D.P.O., regarding the progress of the case. Thus, petitioner had taken all the required steps within his means and thus, there was no fault on his part. Respondent no.2, rejecting the reply of the petitioner, passed impugned order dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure P/8) and suspended the petitioner while exercising his powers under Section 51(1)(b) of the 1994 Act and also ordered regular enquiry under Section 51(2). Aggrieved by his suspension, petitioner filed an appeal before respondent no.1- Financial CWP NO.13658/2007 4 Commissioner, vide grounds of appeal dated 10.7.2007 (Annexure P/9) and vide order of even date Annexure P/10, interim direction staying the suspension of the petitioner was passed. The appeal was, however, dismissed vide order dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure P/13). Hence, the present writ petition. This Court vide order dated 31.8.2007, while issuing notice of motion, had stayed the operation of the impugned orders (Annexures P/8 and P/13). Respondents upon notice, filed reply. The stand of the respondents is the same as taken before the appellate Court i.e. the re- auction of the said plots belonging to Gram Panchayat had fetched Rs.1,70,000/-, and that the petitioner in order to give benefit to the other party in the civil suit, appeared himself instead of contacting the Law Officer and thus did not pursue the case properly and due to that Gram Panchayat had suffered a financial loss. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is the case of the petitioner that auction of two plots belonging to Gram Panchayat was conducted at a public place i.e. a school on 4.5.2007 in the presence of Social Education and Panchayat Officer and all the Panches. Nine bidders had participated in the said auction. The said two plots were auctioned for Rs.89,1000/-, which was higher than the previous year. However, in view of Rs.1,70,000/- offered by the complainant, who had not participated in the initial auction, re-auction was got conducted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the CWP NO.13658/2007 5 earlier successful lessees in the subsequent re-auction have tendered Rs.1,70,000/- and thus, no financial loss as on today has been caused to the Gram Panchayat, and any misconduct on part of the petitioner is yet to be established. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the order dated 11.5.2007 (Annexure P/3) cancelling the previous auction was received by him on 16.5.2007 and the earlier successful bidders had been granted interim stay vide order dated 15.5.2007 (Annexure P/4) by the learned Civil Judge and the case had been adjourned to 24.7.2007. Therefore, it cannot be said that the case was not properly pursued by the petitioner or he had helped them in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that no steps have been taken by the respondents to complete the regular enquiry against the petitioner. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the conduct of the petitioner is not above board as the re- auction of the said plots fetched higher auction money i.e. Rs.1,70,000/- against Rs.89,100/-, and therefore, action of the respondents in suspending the petitioner is justified. It is undisputed that the earlier auction held on 4.5.2007 was conducted in the presence of the Social Education and Panchayat Officer and the Panches wherein nine bidders had participated. Thereafter, the complainant, who had not participated in the earlier auction offered to pay Rs.1,70,000/- for the said plots and in view of the same re-auction was held in which the highest bid tendered is Rs.1,70,000/-. Accordingly, the auction CWP NO.13658/2007 6 has been finalised. It is, therefore, clear that as on today no loss has been caused to the Gram Panchayat. Whether the petitioner had connived with the earlier lessees and the officers, is yet to be determined in the regular enquiry. Further, a perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner after consulting B.D.P.O., had in fact, through an Advocate, moved an application for pre-ponement of the date already fixed i.e. 24.7.2007. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 4.6.2007 (Annexure P/5). The said civil suit was in fact dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.7.2007 (Annexure P/12). Still further, it is also true that the regular enquiry against the petitioner, despite lapse of one year, has not made much progress. We are of the view that democratically elected representatives like the petitioner who have won confidence and trust of the people through the process of election are often made targets of vilification campaign by the opposite groups. We find that in a majority of cases the allegations of commission of irregularities against them are made and the power of suspension of the elected representatives is exercised liberally. It frustrates the mandate of the people and is not good for the health of democracy at grass root level. Therefore, unless gross mis-conduct or allegation of financial irregularities are glaringly apparent on the face of the record or are prima facie found to be established, the executive authorities must act with restraint while exercising their power to suspend the elected representatives at the grass root level. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the writ petition CWP NO.13658/2007 7 and quash the impugned orders dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure P/8) and 21.8.2007 (Annexure P/13). It is however, clarified that the Enquiry Officer will not be influenced by any observation made by us herein above. No order as to costs. (Jaswant Singh) Judge 27.8.2008. (Satish Kumar Mittal) joshi Judge