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).

Moral turpitude – Registration of F.I.R. – Pendency of criminal trial – Effect of -- Elected Sarpanch/Panch represents the society and they are the elected representatives and role-model of the habitants of the village, therefore, they are supposed not to indulge in any criminal activities, more so, in offence punishable under the NDPS Act -- Petitioner shall remain under suspension during the pendency of the investigation/trial, as the case may be. Paramjit Kaur, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 521 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Appeal – 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).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- 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).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Appeal – 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).

Regular Enquiry – Writ Jurisdiction -- Since regular inquiry is pending against the petitioner, therefore, the court not inclined to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see the correctness of the suspension order on the basis of preliminary inquiry, wherein petitioner was prima facie found guilty for the charges. Gurcharan Singh, Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 535 (P&H).

Review of – Writ jurisdiction -- Sarpanch was suspended, on account of allegations of illegal possession of her husband on shamilat land -- Illegal possession purportedly had been removed and therefore, application for reinstatement was filed – Sarpanch was reinstated, however, with the stipulation that regular enquiry would be conducted by District Revenue Officer -- Suspension or reinstatement is a temporary measure during the pendency of a regular enquiry -- If misconduct is established after regular enquiry, surely, the authorities would take action as per law -- No interference against an interim arrangement is called for, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Lakhmi Chand v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 40 (P&H).

Suspension order cannot be kept in force for indefinite period and shall be only for the period when regular inquiry is pending against the Panch/Sarpanch -- Regular inquiry has already been marked – Authorities directed to conclude the final inquiry within 90 days and if inquiry is not complete/concluded within the time prescribed, suspension order shall be deemed having been revoked on the expiry of 90 days -- However, if in the final inquiry charges against the petitioner are found proved, authorities shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Gurcharan Singh, Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 535 (P&H).