Civil Writ Petition No.22382 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22382 of 2010 Date of Decision:29.11.2011 Jatinder Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.D.Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajpreet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of general election, Jatinder Singh(petitioner No.1) was duly elected as a Sarpanch, whereas Lakhvir Kaur(petitioner No.2) was elected as a Panch of the Village Bamna, Block Samana, District Patiala, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. A complaint was made against them(petitioners) with the allegations that they have uprooted and sold the trees standing over the land of the Cremation Ground. A regular enquiry was conducted by the District Development & Panchayat Officer(for brevity “the DDPO”) and the allegations were not proved against the petitioners. He sent his report in this respect. Agreeing with the regular enquiry report of the DDPO, the Director, Rural Development & Panchayat, Punjab(respondent No.2)(for short “the Director”), reinstated them to Civil Writ Petition No.22382 of 2010 2 their respective posts of Sarpanch and Panch, by means of order dated 04.10.2010 (Annexure A-5). 3. Instead of filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, Megh Raj-respondent No.3 again made a complaint against the petitioners on the same grounds and the Financial Commissioner to the Govt. of Punjab, Rural Development & Panchayat Department(respondent No.1) in a very casual manner ordered the fresh enquiry and passed the following non-speaking impugned order dated 26.10.2010(Annexure P-1) on the complaint itself:- “DRDP to get the enquiry conducted through some Deputy Director from the Head Office.” 4. Aggrieved by it, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-1), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, as, the impugned order(Annexure P-1)cannot legally be sustained, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that, respondent No.3 and other villagers made complaints, including the present complaint against the petitioners on the ground that they have uprooted and sold the trees standing over the land of the Cremation Ground. A regular enquiry was conducted by the DDPO and agreeing with his regular enquiry report, the Director(respondent No.2) reinstated the petitioners, by way of order dated 04.10.2010(Annexure A-5), which in substance is as under:- “DDPO after enquiring into the above allegations, sent a report to this office vide letter No.3314 of 29.9.10, had written that the wild bushes in the Panchayat Bamana cremation ground were got removed by the cremation committee. The report of the S.D.M, Samana after inspecting the spot to the effect that the trees were cut and further written that the amount of the Civil Writ Petition No.22382 of 2010 3 trees were not deposited in the account of Panchayat or any committee. In this office, it has been admitted by the President of V.V.S.C. Cremation Ground Committee that wild bushes etc. were removed by Committee. While looking into the picture given by the complainant, it seems that wild bushes of “hilly kikkar” etc. were removed. The complainant has not submitted any evidence to the effect as to whom these trees were sold or in which tractor trolly the wood of these trees were carried and name of the person who had purchased this wood nor his statement was recorded. Thus, from the above said facts, wild kikkar bushes etc. from Panchayat Bamana S.C.Cremation ground were although cut but not by Sarpanch or Panchayat rather cremation committee had got the same cut. The President of the Committee in his statement has admitted that before clearing the bushes if some kind of permission was required from the department in that context, only committee is responsible and if the department is imposing penalty for the same, the committee is ready to pay. In this manner, the allegation of uprooting of the trees by Panch or Sarpanch are not proved and therefore the charge regarding uprooting of trees from cremation ground are not proved. Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that as per the report of the D.D.P.O. regarding non-proving of the charge against Jatinder Singh Sarpanch and Lakhvir Kaur Panch, Gram Panchayat Bawana, Block Samana, District Patiala, keeping them under suspension for further period will not be in the public interest. So, the complaint against them is filed and they are reinstated to the post of Sarpanch and Panch.” 7. Meaning thereby, once the petitioners were exonerated in the wake of regular enquiry, then second enquiry on the same charges, is not legally permissible. If the complainant was aggrieved by the order(Annexure A-5) of the Director, then instead of filing a fresh complaint, he ought to have challenged the same by filing the statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. If the repeated enquiries on the same charges/allegations are permitted to continue, then there will be no end of anything and it would culminate into unnecessary harassment to the Sarpanches and Panches in this relevant connection. Therefore, to me, the impugned cryptic and non-speaking order(Annexure P-1) to conduct the second enquiry on the same allegations cannot legally be maintained. Civil Writ Petition No.22382 of 2010 4 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. The impugned order(Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. November 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE