Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994)

Section 20 – Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch – Appeal against – Speaking order -- Appellate authority not adhered to the actual grounds of removal mentioned in the order of the Director based on the report of regular inquiry of ADC -- Real controversy between the parties was not decided – Held, order is non-speaking, appellate authority ought to have discussed the material on record -- Such statutory appellate authority, exercising the powers under the Act, should act independently -- Every action of such authority must be informed by reasons -- Order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of justice and fair play -- Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the valuable democratic rights of the parties are involved in the lis. Baldip Pal Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Govt. and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 270 (P&H).

Section 20 – Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch – Challenge to -- Enquiry – Right of – Sarpanch/Panch can be placed under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry for the alleged misconduct committed by him – There is no question of keeping him under suspension for the indefinite period – Direction given to initiate and hold the enquiry for the alleged misconduct and to conclude the same after affording opportunity to the petitioner, preferably within four months and if petitioner is not found guilty for the alleged misconduct, suspension order will go -- However, if enquiry is not concluded within four months as directed, impugned orders shall be deemed to have been set aside. Gurjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 418 (P&H).

Section 20(4)(g) – Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch – Appeal against – Necessary party – Complainant is necessary party -- In view of the complaint and on the basis of inquiry reports, the Director removed respondent from the post of Sarpanch – Appeal was filed without impleading the complainants as parties – Held, complainants were the aggrieved parties, so the appellate authority slipped into a legal error in accepting the appeal, even without issuing notice to complainant, who were the necessary parties -- Appellate authority ought to have issued notice and provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the complainants before deciding the appeal against them in view of the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Baldip Pal Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Govt. and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 270 (P&H).

Section 20(4)(g) – Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch – Appeal – Review application by complainant – Single line order “Review application is not liable to be accepted, therefore, it is dismissed” cannot possibly be termed to be a proper adjudication of rights of the complainants in the appeal -- Contention that review application of complainants was dismissed, so, they would be deemed to be parties in the appeal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Baldip Pal Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Govt. and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 270 (P&H).

Section 85 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) -- Public utility property – Common purposes – usage of -- Vesting of – Gram Panchayat -- Right of -- All the properties which are being used for common purposes or are being used as public utility properties whether part of the Shamlat Deh or not, shall vest in the Gram Panchayat. Sohan Lal and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 262 (P&H).