Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 416 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab

2001-04-05

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2001
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioners are the Sarpanch and Panches respectively of the village panchayat. On May 8, 1999, a criminal case under Sections 307, 506/323/324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against them. The offences under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 were also alleged to have been made out. The petitioners were taken into custody. The Court granted remand. On July 14, 1999, the Deputy Director ordered the suspension of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Special Secretary to the Government, vide order dated September 29, 1999. Copies of these orders have been produced as Annexures P2 and P4 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. 2. Notice of motion was issued. 3. A written statement has been filed. 4. Mr. G.S. Grewal contends that the charges against the petitioners are not such as would embarrass them in the performance of their duties. In any case, the Authority has not found that the petitioners are likely to be embarrassed. He further submits that the Deputy Director had no power to pass the order of suspension. 5. Ms. Charu Tuli appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners were armed with deadly weapons. They have been accused of serious offences. They were taken into police custody. Even though, they may have been granted bail, the shadow of the case still hangs on them. The pendency of the case would certainly embarrass them in the performance of their duties. With regard to the second contention, she has submitted that no averment has been made in the petition that the Deputy Director had not been invested with the powers of the Director. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to raise this issue at the time of arguments. 6. The allegations against the petitioners are serious. The authorities have taken a possible view. It cannot be said that the view is arbitrary or unfair. In any case, an accusation of such a serious nature is not a compliment. It is a source of embarrassment. In this situation, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the authorities. 7. Mr. Grewal contends that the Deputy Director did not have the power to pass the order of suspension. The power vests only in the Director. In any case, an accusation of such a serious nature is not a compliment. It is a source of embarrassment. In this situation, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the authorities. 7. Mr. Grewal contends that the Deputy Director did not have the power to pass the order of suspension. The power vests only in the Director. 8. It has not been disputed that the State Government is competent to confer the power of the Director on a Deputy Director Section 2(q) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 specifically authorises the State Government to do so. The petitioners have not alleged anywhere in the petition that the powers of the Director have not been conferred on the Deputy Director. Still further, this issue was not even raised before the Appellate Authority. In fact, a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority shows that the appeal was directed "against the order dated 14.7.1999 passed by the Deputy Director (Land Development), exercising the powers of the Director Panchayats........" Thus, the power had been conferred on the Deputy Director. 9. No other point has been raised. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is consequently dismissed. 11. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.