Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1635 (PNJ)

Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2011-08-25

ALOK SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh J.: (Oral) - Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that on 16.7.2008, petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Nangal Bihallan, Block Hajipur, District Hoshiarpur. Some complaints were made against the petitioner that the petitioner has failed to take any action against the encroachers of the Panchayat land. Preliminary enquiry was held against the petitioner and vide report dated 9.12.2010, the petitioner was prima-facie found guilty of having not taken action against the encroachers of the Panchayat land. On the basis of preliminary enquiry report, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.3.2011 (Annexure P/1) under Section 20(4) of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”). He further contends that the suspension order, Annexure P/1, passed under Section 20(4) of the Act, shall remain in force during the pendency of the final enquiry. He further contends that in the final enquiry report dated 27.7.2011 (Annexure P/4), charges against the petitioner were not found to be proved, therefore, learned Director, respondent No. 2, had no other alternative except to reinstate the petitioner by revoking the suspension order. Learned counsel has correctly argued that the suspension cannot be continued for indefinite period, if the petitioner was not found guilty in the final enquiry and the only course left is to reinstate him after revoking the suspension order. Learned counsel has further argued that although, the petitioner has moved a representation dated 18.8.2011 (Annexure P/5), yet no action has been taken thereon by reinstating the petitioner on the post of Sarpanch, after revoking the suspension order, in view of the outcome of the final enquiry report. 2. Notice of motion. 3. On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition can be disposed of at admission stage. 4. From the perusal of the file, it seems that in the Enquiry Report dated 27.7.2011, charges against the petitioner were not found to be proved. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, suspension order ought to have been revoked in view of the outcome of the final enquiry report (Annexure P/4), however, instead of revoking the suspension order, respondents are sleeping over the matter and not passing any order on the representation (Annexure P/5) of the petitioner . 5. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, suspension order ought to have been revoked in view of the outcome of the final enquiry report (Annexure P/4), however, instead of revoking the suspension order, respondents are sleeping over the matter and not passing any order on the representation (Annexure P/5) of the petitioner . 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, respondent No. 2 is directed to take decision on the representation dated 18.8.2011 (Annexure P/5) within 30 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before him, in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if in the final enquiry report, the petitioner was not found guilty of any charges, then, suspension order ought to have been revoked. Respondents are further directed not to hold any election till decision is taken on the representation (Annexure P/5). Petition stands disposed of.