IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.10800 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 15, 2011 HARMEET SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr.HS Batth, Advocate, Ms. Sonu Chahal, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Challenge in this petition is to order dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 26.4.2010 (Annexure P-7). Vide order (Annexure P-6), Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, suspended the petitioner from holding the post of Sarpanch of Village Wadala Kalan, Block Raya, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. Essentially, the order of suspension has been passed while taking into account the fact that the petitioner is involved as an accused in case FIR No.187 dated 9.9.2009 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Civil Writ Petition No.10800 of 2010 2 Code, Police Station, Beas. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although powers have been exercised under Section 20 sub-section (3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), however, relevant considerations have not been taken into account. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of this Court dated 6.3.2009 rendered in CWP 3391 of 2009 (Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and another). 3 Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the impugned orders are legal insomuch as the nature of offences themselves indicate moral turpitude. 4 I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, in the context of the contents of the impugned orders. 5 In the impugned order (Annexure P-6), passed by the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, the following has been said in the context of powers under sub-section (3) Section 20 of the Act:- “As per sub section 20(3) of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, if a case has been registered against a Sarpanch, then he cannot continue on this office. Due to the registration of the case against him, his falls under moral turpitude, due to this he cannot perform his duties properly. It is not in the Panchayat/Public interest to keep such a Sarpanch on his office for further period.” Civil Writ Petition No.10800 of 2010 3 6 While upholding the order (Annexure P-6), the Financial Commissioner, exercising the appellate jurisdiction, in the impugned order (Annexure P-7) has held in the following terms:- “After hearing the arguments of both the parties, I reached to this conclusion that an FIR u/s 420/465/468/471 and 120-B IPC has been registered against him in P.S. Beas against the Sarpanch and the case is pending before the lower court. The case registered against the appellant falls in the ambit of moral turpitude. The Director has powers u/s 20(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 that if a criminal case is got registered against any Panch or Sarpanch, then any such person can be suspended from the post. Therefore, the appellant has been absolutely rightly suspended and no interference is warranted against the suspension order passed by the Director. This appeal is dismissed.” 7 It has been brought out and also mentioned in the FIR (Annexure P-1) that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the amount drawn under Shagun Scheme. The petitioner, acting as a Sarpanch, gave a wrong attestation. Though the person was not eligible for the benefit under the Shagun Scheme, however, he got the benefit. The cheque, however, was returned to the authorities even before the FIR was lodged against the main accused. 8 In my considered opinion, the relevant facts as to whether the petitioner, acting as a Sarpanch, was a beneficiary or not; whether any loss had been caused or Civil Writ Petition No.10800 of 2010 4 not and the issue on which the FIR had been registered, were required to be considered before exercise of jurisdiction under sub-section (3) Section 20 of the Act. 9 Sub-section (3) Section 20 of the Act reads as under:- “The Director may so suspend any Sarpanch or Panch where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial if, in the opinion of the Director, the charge made or proceeding taken against him is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character.” 10 A perusal of the provision shows that if, in the opinion of the Director, the charge made or proceeding taken against a Sarpanch is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character, he may suspended the Sarpanch. 11 There is no consideration in the context of the provisions of sub-section (3) Section 20 of the Act. All that has been considered is that the Director has the power to suspend the Sarpanch on registration of a case which, in my opinion, is not complete consideration. 12 The issue has been considered in Manjit Kaur's case (supra) and the following has been held:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner stopped accepting pension even before the election. Whatever amount had been taken by the petitioner on account of wrong withdrawal, which was attributable to her Civil Writ Petition No.10800 of 2010 5 illiterate status, she has refunded back and deposited the same in the Government account. The matter is required to be reconsidered by the Director in the context of allegations made and the provisions of the Act whereupon, reasoned order is required to be passed to see whether the offending act of the petitioner, as reflected in the FIR, is likely to embarrass her in discharge of her duties or involve moral turpitude or defect of character. The petition is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. The parties would be required to appear before the Director on 16.3.2009. The Director shall reconsider the issue in the light of the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act and decide within two months of the given date i.e. 16.3.2009. The petitioner would be at liberty to place before the Director the documents in her defence. In the meantime, the order of suspension shall be kept in abeyance. The facts have been considered only so as to adjudicate on the issue and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case or conduct of the petitioner.” 13 In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Order dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 26.4.2010 (Annexure P-7) are hereby quashed. The Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, is directed to re-address the issue, in the context of what has been said above and pass orders afresh, within a period of 30 days of receipt of certified Civil Writ Petition No.10800 of 2010 6 copy of this order. 14 The petitioner shall put in appearance before the said authority on 28.2.2011. February 15, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?