IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10435 of 2011 Date of Decision: June 02, 2011 Lakhmi Chand .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Sihag, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Petitioner challenges order dated 19.5.2011 (Annexure P-6/T) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, vide which respondent No.3, Raj Bala, has been reinstated as Sarpanch of village Mirkan, Tehsil & District, Hisar. 2. Learned counsel contends that Raj Bala, respondent No.3 was suspended on prima facie charge of unauthorized possession of shamilat land by her husband. Appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.5.2011 (Annexure P-6/T), Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, has reviewed his earlier order and reinstated respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel contends that Deputy Commissioner could not have reviewed his own order. Private CWP No.10435 of 2011 [2] respondent had approached the Financial Commissioner, however, the petition had been withdrawn. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Perusal of order dated 19.5.2011 (Annexure P-6/T) indicates that Raj Bala was suspended vide order dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure P-3/T) from the post of Sarpanch, under Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, on account of allegations of illegal possession of her husband on shamilat land. The illegal possession purportedly had been removed and therefore, application for reinstatement was filed by the private respondent. Taking a lenient view, the respondent has been reinstated on the post of Sarpanch, however, with the stipulation that regular enquiry would be conducted by District Revenue Officer. 6. Suspension or reinstatement is a temporary measure during the pendency of a regular enquiry. In such circumstances, if misconduct of the private respondent is established after regular enquiry, surely, the authorities would take action against respondent No.3 as per law. In such circumstances, no interference against an interim arrangement is called for, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 7. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) June 02, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?