CWP No.18250 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18250 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.09.2011 Jai Pal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging order dated 22.9.2011 passed by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana Development and Panchayats Department, Chandigarh, whereby application moved by the petitioner seeking stay of operation of order dated 15.9.2011 was dismissed during the pendency of appeal under Section 51(5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Brief facts of the present case, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that petitioner was placed under suspension without any show cause notice vide order dated 15.9.2011 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that petitioner is in jail for offences punishable under Sections 420, 461, 468, 471 IPC pursuant to FIR No.71 dated 25.5.2011, Police Station Baroda. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on CWP No.18250 of 2011 -2- the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mange Ram, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Khapar Vs. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana and others, 1997(1) PLJ 437, has argued that if authority proposes to place Sarpanch under suspension on the ground that criminal offence subject matter of enquiry or trial amounts to moral turpitude or defect of character or may likely embarrass him in discharge of his duties then show cause notice must be issued before passing the suspension order. Learned counsel has argued that neither show cause notice was issued nor petitioner was heard and wrong finding was recorded that petitioner was in jail on 15.9.2011 while, in fact, petitioner was released on bail on 29.8.2011. He has further argued feeling aggrieved from order dated 15.9.2011, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner under Section 51(5) of the Act along with application seeking ad interim stay of the operation and effect of order dated 15.9.2011, however, stay was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Prima facie no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing order dated 15.9.2011, therefore, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mange Ram (supra), suspension order should not have been passed, however, since appeal is pending before the Financial Commissioner, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I direct that order dated 15.9.2011 shall remain stay during the pendency of the appeal before the Financial Commissioner. Learned Financial Commissioner shall decide the appeal CWP No.18250 of 2011 -3- at the earliest in any case within 90 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before him. Petitioner can raise all the points available under the law before the Financial Commissioner. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Alok Singh) Judge September 27, 2011 R.S.