JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.:- The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.6.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2, suspending the petitioner from the post of Panch and also the appellate order dated 23.7.2012 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1. Further a writ of Mandamus is also sought by the petitioner for his re-instatement. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Panchayat elections were held in the State of Punjab in the year 2008. Election in the village of the petitioner was held on 26.5.2008, wherein he was elected as Panch of Gram Panchayat Dhollanwal. A complaint was made against the petitioner alleging that he was in illegal possession of Panchayat land of village Salempur. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana-II wrote to respondent No.2 on 11.4.2012 (Annexure P-1), recommending suspension of the petitioner. A show cause notice dated 16.5.2012 (Annexure P-2) was issued to the petitioner giving him 15 days time to submit his reply. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he received show cause notice dated 24.5.2012 and he submitted reply thereto, on 5.6.2012 (Annexure P-4). However, without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the impugned suspension order dated 5.6.2012 (Annexure P-5) was passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner filed his appeal before respondent No.1, but when the same was not being heard, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 12667 of 2012 (Annexure P-6), during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No.1. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 9.7.2012, directing respondent No.1 to prepone the date of hearing of the appeal and decide the stay application on or before 25.7.2012. Thereafter, respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 23.7.2012 (Annexure P-7). 3. Feeling aggrieved against the abovesaid impugned orders, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order. 4. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, reply by way of counter affidavit dated 15.1.2013 of Dhanwant Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana-II, was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 whereas a separate reply by way of short affidavit dated 1.2.2013 was filed on behalf of respondent No. 5. 5. 4. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, reply by way of counter affidavit dated 15.1.2013 of Dhanwant Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana-II, was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 whereas a separate reply by way of short affidavit dated 1.2.2013 was filed on behalf of respondent No. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, states that he has the instructions to withdraw the allegations of malafide against respondent No.5. Thus, he seeks and granted permission to withdraw the allegations of malafide against respondent No.5. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole allegation levelled against the petitioner was that he was in illegal occupation of Panchayat land of village Salempur. However, the allegation was factually incorrect, because the possession of his father was coming on that land since 1991-92 as a tenant at will (gairmarusi). After the death of his father, petitioner along with his six brothers, came to be recorded in the column of cultivation as gairmarusi to the extent of 1/7th share. He further submits that neither the Gram Panchayat of village Salempur, nor any resident thereof, has ever moved any ejectment application against the petitioner. He has filed his reply to the show cause notice well within 15 days after receipt of the show cause notice, but the same was illegally ignored by respondent No.2 while passing the impugned suspension order. Similarly, the appellate authority-respondent No.1 also failed to consider the relevant official record, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. He next contended that since the impugned suspension order as well as the impugned appellate order passed by respondents No.1 and 2 were contrary to the official record and were based on extraneous considerations, the same were liable to be set aside, allowing the writ petition with exemplary costs. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was in unauthorised possession over the Panchayat land, because of which he was rightly suspended and his appeal was also found to be without any merit. The appeal was dismissed by respondent No.1, in accordance with law. He further submits that the impugned suspension order as well as the impugned appellate order were passed as per facts of the case and also as per the relevant provisions of law. The appeal was dismissed by respondent No.1, in accordance with law. He further submits that the impugned suspension order as well as the impugned appellate order were passed as per facts of the case and also as per the relevant provisions of law. He concluded by submitting that since the writ petition was without any merit, it was liable to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present writ petition deserves to be allowed for the following more than one reasons. 9. It has gone undisputed on the record that the sole allegation against the petitioner was that he has illegally occupied the Panchayat land in village Salempur and, thus, has misused his post. However, a careful perusal of the relevant revenue record available on the case file in the form of jamabandi for the year 1991-92 (Annexure P-8), jamabandi for the year 1996-97 (Annexure P-9), jamabandi for the year 2001-02 (Annexure P-10) and jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (Annexure P-11), would show that allegation levelled against the petitioner was not only factually correct but it was contrary to the official revenue record, as well. 10. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was elected as Panch of village Dhollanwal in the year 2008, whereas his father was coming in cultivating and authorised possession of the land of Gram Panchayat of village Salempur as gair maurusi. Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that if any Panch of Gram Panchayat was in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land of a different village, he would become liable for action, still, the allegation is not substantiated against the petitioner. The reason was simple that the petitioner was not in illegal possession. 11. Firstly, the petitioner was not in unauthorised possession of land of village Salempur, as wrongly alleged against him. Secondly, the petitioner inherited the possession to the extent of 1/7th share along with his six brothers after the death of his father, which is clear from the jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (Annexure P-11). It is also clearly recorded in this jamabandi that possession of the petitioner was Gair marusi which means tenant at will. Secondly, the petitioner inherited the possession to the extent of 1/7th share along with his six brothers after the death of his father, which is clear from the jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (Annexure P-11). It is also clearly recorded in this jamabandi that possession of the petitioner was Gair marusi which means tenant at will. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the sole allegation levelled against the petitioner was a non existing allegation, which has not been substantiated against him, as per the relevant record. 12. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2. Seal of post office is 21.5.2012 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner has specifically stated in his reply dated 5.6.2012 (Annexure P-4) that he received the show cause notice on 24.5.2012 and submitted his reply within 15 days, which was received in the office of respondent No.2, vide diary No. 1987 dated 5.6.2012. The petitioner has taken specific averment in this regard in para 5 of the writ petition which has been admitted by the official respondents in corresponding para 5 of their counter affidavit. It is again a matter of record that the impugned suspension order was also passed by respondent No.2 on the same day i.e. 5.6.2012. In spite of the above, respondent No.2 did not consider the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner. 13. On the other hand, he has recorded that the petitioner has failed to file reply to the show cause notice, which is factually incorrect, as per his own office record. It is further recorded by respondent No.2 that name of the petitioner is entered in the column of cultivation in the jamabandi. Further, he referred to the report of Block Development and Panchayat Officer to show that the petitioner was an illegal occupant of the land of village Salempur. Neither it appeals to reason nor it gets substantiated from the relevant revenue record. Respondents have not placed on record any other documents. 14. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that it was a made up story put forth against the petitioner only to keep him under suspension without any justified reason. To keep an elected person out of his office on flimsy grounds is a matter of serious concern. Respondents have not placed on record any other documents. 14. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that it was a made up story put forth against the petitioner only to keep him under suspension without any justified reason. To keep an elected person out of his office on flimsy grounds is a matter of serious concern. It is not understandable as to how and on what basis, respondent No.2 who was head of the department, neither discussed nor discarded but altogether illegally ignored, a specific and categoric entry of Gair marusi, recorded in the jamabandi for the year 2006- 2007 (Annexure P-11). Thus, it is held that the impugned order of suspension dated 5.6.2012 (Annexure P-5), was not passed on merits by respondent No.2 but for the reasons best known to him. Similarly, respondent No.1 also proceeded on a wholly misconceived and perverse approach while passing the impugned appellate order dated 23.7.2012 (Annexure P-7), thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The only purpose seems to be that to keep the petitioner out of his office of Panch. 15. It is not the case of the respondents that there was any other allegation against the petitioner except the one referred to here-in-above. While recording the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner in para 2 of the impugned order, respondent No.1 has completely failed to deal with the same while coming to a wholly unjustified conclusion. It is also a matter of record that Gram Panchayat of village Salempur was not a party to these proceedings. It is nowhere recorded that during the so called inquiry, allegedly conducted by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana-II, Gram Panchayat of village Salempur was consulted or associated in the inquiry against the petitioner. 16. In fact, right from the Block Development and Panchayat Officer up to the Financial Commissioner, none of the authorities has discussed the actual entry recorded in column of cultivation of jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (Annexure P-11). The only reason which appears from the record of the case is that this material entry of Gair marusi has been intentionally and illegally ignored, because had it been discussed and appreciated, there would have been no chance to substantiate the allegation against the petitioner. The only reason which appears from the record of the case is that this material entry of Gair marusi has been intentionally and illegally ignored, because had it been discussed and appreciated, there would have been no chance to substantiate the allegation against the petitioner. Further, the respondents are conveniently silent in their written statement about any action taken pursuant to the directions issued by respondent No.1 in his order dated 23.7.2011 (Annexure P-7). 17. When a pointed query was put by the Court to the learned counsel for the State as to what action was taken by the Gram Panchayat of village Salempur, in this regard, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Sh. Raj Kumar, Village Development Officer, office of Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, submits that no such action was taken to their knowledge. Thus, the impugned suspension order as well as the impugned appellate order cannot be sustained. 18. No other argument was raised. 19. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 5.6.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab-respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension as Panch of Gram Panchayat Dhollanwal, and also the appellate order dated 23.7.2012 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary Punjab Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats-respondent No.1, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, are hereby ordered to be set aside. The petitioner is directed to be re-instated forthwith. 20. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.30,000/-, which shall be equally borne by the then Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and the then Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary Punjab Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats. The costs shall be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of two months, failing which the Punjab State Legal Services Authority shall be entitled to recover the same, in accordance with law. 21. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, in the terms aforementioned. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————