JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - This order shall dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 23339 of 2011 (Gurdit Singh Panch vs. State of Punjab and others) and CWP No. 23362 of 2011 (Karanmjit Singh Panch vs. State of Punjab and others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 23339 of 2011. 2. The general elections of the Panchayat in the State of Punjab were held on 26.05.2008 in which 7 members of the Panchayat including the present petitioner were elected in village Phullokhari, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. Election for the post of Sarpanch was held on 20.07.2008 which was meant for general category candidates. Balbir Kaur was declared as elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. She however refused to cooperate with the Panches who had supported her. It is alleged that she always tried to pressurize the supporting Panches by forcing them to put their signatures on the blank proceedings or the proceedings which had already been written. 3. As per the provisions of Section 19 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj act, 1994, five Panches out of the total seven members of the Gram Panchayat made an application on 27.07.2010 to Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Talwandi Sabo for calling a meeting of ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Sarpanch Smt. Balbir Kaur. B.D.P.O. - respondent No. 4, however, failed to call for the meeting as was prayed. The petitioner alongwith other Panches had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15079 of 2010 titled as Gurditt Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others before this Court seeking direction before the respondent to call meeting for considering the ‘No Confidence Motion’. The said writ petition was disposed of on 06.09.2010 when Block Development and Panchayat Officer come present before the Court and made a statement that the meeting would he held on the next date fixed. 4. A meeting, accordingly, was held to consider the ‘No Confidence Motion’ on 15.09.2010. The resolution was passed and the proceedings of the meeting were forwarded by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 2 and to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda for initiating further proceedings with regard to the election of new Sarpanch. 4. A meeting, accordingly, was held to consider the ‘No Confidence Motion’ on 15.09.2010. The resolution was passed and the proceedings of the meeting were forwarded by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 2 and to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda for initiating further proceedings with regard to the election of new Sarpanch. It has now been disclosed in response to a direction issued by this Court that at the relevant time Amarjeet Singh was working as B.D.P.O. at Talwandi Sabo and had submitted the enquiry report to District Development Panchayat Officer, Bathinda on 04.10.2010. The Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda appointed Sh. Bikkar Singh, AO in the office of Chief Agricultural Office, Bathinda as the Presiding Officer to conduct an election for the post of Sarpanch. The Presiding Officer was yet to fix any date of election for the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat but this officer went on leave and did not conduct any proceedings in this regard. Accordingly, no proceeding to appoint new Sarpanch was held. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith other Panches met the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda and requested him to appoint a new Presiding Officer upon which Sh. Raghbir Singh, ADO in the office of Chief Agricultural Office, Bathinda was then appointed as a Presiding Officer on 26.10.2010 who issued notice to all the members of the Panchayat for holding election of Sarpanch on 29.10.2010. It is alleged that local defeated MLA namely Sh. Amarjit Singh Sidhu pressurized the Deputy Commissioner to such an extent that the above said Presiding Officer was transferred on 28.10.2010 without assigning any reason and in his place Sh. Satwant Singh, Naib Tehsildar Talwandi Sabo was then detailed to act as a Presiding Officer to conduct the elections. 6. This officer failed to issue notice to the members of the Panchyat for conducting the election of new Sarpanch, therefore, the petitioners were forced to approach the Deputy Commissioner again for calling a meeting when he issued notice on 10.11.2010. 7. The meeting was to be held on 15.11.2010. The petitioner alongwith other Panches came present in the office of respondent No. 4 and remained there from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. but the Presiding Officer Satwant Singh failed to reach the place. Accordingly, no election was conducted and even no information was given to the Panches present on the spot with regard to postponing of the election. The petitioner alongwith other Panches came present in the office of respondent No. 4 and remained there from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. but the Presiding Officer Satwant Singh failed to reach the place. Accordingly, no election was conducted and even no information was given to the Panches present on the spot with regard to postponing of the election. In the evening, however, the Panches were conveyed that the Presiding Officer got busy in procurement of the paddy crop from the Mandi and due to this reason the election was postponed to 30.11.2010. 8. On the said date i.e. 30.11.2010, the Presiding Officer again postponed the election to 10.12.2012. 9. Forced by these tactics, the petitioner had to file the Civil Writ Petition No. 20698 of 2010 titled as Gurditt Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others before this Court which was fixed for hearing on 2.12.2010 on which date Sh. Satwant Singh, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Presiding Officer came present before the Court and committed himself to conclude the election on 10.12.2010. 10. Realising that Balbir Kaur would be removed as 2/3rd majority of Panches are against her, efforts are now made to exert political pressure upon the revenue staff and on 28.09.2010 the Tehsildar, Talwandi Sabo alongwith Randhir Singh Patwari and Gurmail Singh Kanungo came to the village. Beant Singh, Sub Inspector was also accompanying them as also the police help and the team started conducting nishandehi of Khasra No.187(31-7). The members of Panchayat were also called on the spot by saying that the presence is to be marked for conducting nishandehi upon which the objections were raised by the residents of village that no notice in advance has been given to Gurditt Singh Panch and Karamjit Singh Panch for conducing nishandehi. It is alleged by the petitioner that the revenue staff was under tremendous pressure of the defeated MLA Sh. Amarjit Singh Sidhu who through BDPO, who had not ordered for conducting nishandehi. 11. Respondent No. 3 endorsed this nishandehi on 14.10.2010 and sent a report to respondent No. 2 by stating that the petitioner is in illegal possession of Khasra No. 187 measuring 31 kanal 7 marlas. On the basis of this report, Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab - respondent No. 2 issued notice on 19.11.2010 requiring the petitioner to file his clarification within 15 days. On the basis of this report, Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab - respondent No. 2 issued notice on 19.11.2010 requiring the petitioner to file his clarification within 15 days. This notice was received to the petitioner on 21.11.2010 and the compliance report was sent by the BDPO on 23.11.2010. The petitioner filed a reply to the allegations on 6.12.2010 before respondent No. 2 raising various pleas. As per the service report, the notice was served on 21.11.2010 and 15 days time was to expire on 16.12.2010. The Director, thereafter, was empowered to pass an order but was under so much of pressure that he suspended the petitioner form the post of Sarpanch on 15th days i.e. 16.12.2012 itself. Aggrieved the suspension order, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed on 11.7.2011. He has, accordingly, filed this petition before this Court. 12. Similar is the fate of petitioner – Karamjit Singh who has also been similarly treated and is placed under suspension. The petitioners have impugned their order of suspension. Incidentally, ‘No Confidence Motion’ was passed against Sarpanch Balbir Kaur. The respondent despite such pressure having been exerted remained unsuccessful for not permitting the petitioners to participate in the election of new Sarpanch. In terms of the order passed by this Court, the petitioners by way of interim measure were permitted to participate in the election as per the order dated 9.12.2010 (Annexure P-10). 13. In the response filed by the State, it is stated that the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner has been submitted and the allegations of encroachment on Panchayat land were established. The petitioners were suspended from the post of Panch as an interim measure and regular enquiry was entrusted to Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Bathinda who was directed to submit the detailed enquiry after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. It is stated that the final action would follow against the petitioner on the basis of final enquiry. 14. The State counsel on instructions submits that final enquiry report is still awaited and has not yet been submitted. At the time of issuing notice of the motion, operation of the impugned order was stayed till further orders. It is stated that the final action would follow against the petitioner on the basis of final enquiry. 14. The State counsel on instructions submits that final enquiry report is still awaited and has not yet been submitted. At the time of issuing notice of the motion, operation of the impugned order was stayed till further orders. When the case came up for hearing on 16.11.2012, the State counsel was asked to disclose the name of the District Development and Panchayat Officer who were holding the office at the relevant time in this case and also of the Director in order to pass an appropriate order in this case. 15. Necessary information has now been submitted through an affidavit which is taken on record. As already noticed, Sh. Amarjeet Singh B.D.P.O. Talwandi Sabo after conducting an enquiry had forwarded the report to the District Development Panchayat Officer, Bathinda against Sh. Gurdit Singh, Panch and Karamjeet Singh, Panch. It is submitted that Smt. Parampal Kaur who was then holding the office of District Development Panchayat Officer had only forwarded the enquiry report submitted by the BDPO to the Director Rural Development and Panchayat Officer through Sh. Gurdev Singh IAS who was holding the office at the relevant time. 16. After considering the report as submitted, a show cause notice was issued on 19.11.2010 by the Director. The petitioner failed to submit reply and so the Director had passed the suspension order on 6.12.2010. 17. A clear impression would emerge in this case that the enquiry, in this case, was commenced against the petitioners, since they were pursuing their action to dislodge Smt. Balbir Kaur the elected Sapranch. The official, apparently, have acted as tools in the hands of political masters. It is clear that the B.D.P.O. had acted against the petitioners to suspend them so that they are not able to participate in the election to elect new Sarpanch. The official respondents, thus, have acted in this manner and has made themselves subservient in this manner, which is not befitting the post they were holding. From the totality of the facts in this case, it is clearly noticed that official respondents had acted under the pressure of political masters. The official respondents, thus, have acted in this manner and has made themselves subservient in this manner, which is not befitting the post they were holding. From the totality of the facts in this case, it is clearly noticed that official respondents had acted under the pressure of political masters. Though the local defeated MLA of the ruling party has not been impleaded as a party respondent but the manner in which the official respondents have behaved would be enough indication that pressure obviously was from some higher quarters. The allegations made by the petitioners thus are established from mere facts and circumstances of this case. This Court had granted protection to the petitioners. The petitioners suspension would have continued and they even would not have been able to participate in the new election of the Sarpanch or perhaps may not have been able to exercise their legal rights to pass ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Sarpanch who was behaving in dictatorial manner. The entire circumstances in this case would be rather in a bad taste. 18. The petitioners have been forced to approach this Court time and again to seek protection of their rights. Still, the official respondents worked regardlessly ignoring the call of their duties and had placed the petitioner under suspension without much justification. The time to submit reply was yet to expire when the petitioners were suspended. There was no such hurry except for some pressure that the Director had to pass the order placing the petitioner under suspension on the day when the 15 days time for notice was complete. The suspension order of the petitioner thus was actuated with motive and can not be sustained and is set aside. The official respondents especially the B.D.P.O. and the Director who have acted in this manner ignoring the call of their duties are burdened with the cost of petitions which is assessed at Rs.25,000/-. They shall both share and pay the costs to the petitioner in each case. The action of imposing cost on these two officials shall be reflected in the confidential reports of the Officers. 19. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------