Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 516 (PNJ)

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-04-23

Amol Rattan Singh, Satish Kumar Mittal

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: - C.M. No.252-LPA of 2013 The appellant has filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 110 days delay in filing the accompanying appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons given in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, we are satisfied that sufficient reasons have been given for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 3. Consequently, the application is allowed and the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. L.P.A. No.93 of 2013 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The instant Letters patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 13.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (C.W.P. No.13001 of 2012) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 28.2.2012 passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, suspending the appellant from the post of Panch; as well as the order dated 7.5.2012 passed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, rejecting his appeal filed against the said order, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 6. The appellant was elected as one of the members (Panch) of the Gram Panchayat of village Sattowali, District Jalandhar. Subsequently, a complaint was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar in a Sangat Darshan on 5.5.2007 against Satnam Singh son of Prem Singh alleging therein that he had encroached upon a part of the common purpose land of the Gram Panchayat (Khasra No.23) in the Abadi Deh. On the said complaint, an enquiry was marked to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer who submitted his report that the said Khasra number is Abadi Deh which was created in the year 1956-57 and the same is recorded in the revenue record as Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat Makbuja Malkan in the column of possession, and in the column of ownership there was no entry of Panchayat Deh. On receiving the said report, the Deputy Commissioner filed the complaint. Later on, the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for removal of the encroachment alleged to have been made by the appellant on the Panchayat Ghar, which was alleged to have been constructed on Khasra No.37. On receiving the said report, the Deputy Commissioner filed the complaint. Later on, the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for removal of the encroachment alleged to have been made by the appellant on the Panchayat Ghar, which was alleged to have been constructed on Khasra No.37. The said petition was also got dismissed as withdrawn. 7. It is the case of the appellant that since the appellant being Panch of the Gram Panchayat had sought an enquiry against the Ex- Sarpanch with regard to the allegations of misappropriation of funds, he in connivance with the Panchayat Secretary as well as Panchayat Officer, Block Development and Panchayat Officer again got started an enquiry with regard to the allegations that the appellant had illegally encroached upon the Panchayat land/Panchayat Ghar. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR No.235 dated 10.12.2008 under Sections 447/448/34 IPC and FIR No.236 dated 10.12.2008 under Sections 379 and 447 IPC were registered against the appellant at the instance of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The said FIRs were later on quashed by this Court vide order dated 18.7.2011 passed in Crl.Misc.No.M-20009 of 2009 on the basis of the report made by the Naib Tehsildar, according to which the Gram Panchayat has nothing to do with Khasra No.37, which is a Mustarka land in the Abadi Deh. Later on, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer sent a report to the Deputy Commissioner that the FIRs lodged against the appellant were got quashed on the basis of the report of Halqa Patwari and Kanungo, which was supplied to the appellant by Naib Tehsildar. On the basis of the said letter written by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to the Deputy Commissioner, the Director, Panchayat issued a show-cause notice to the appellant and instituted an enquiry for his removal. During the pendency of the said enquiry, the appellant was placed under suspension under Section 20(5) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as by this Court. 8. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. During the pendency of the said enquiry, the appellant was placed under suspension under Section 20(5) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as by this Court. 8. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge that since the regular enquiry is pending, therefore, this Court could not go into the disputed questions of facts raised by the learned counsel for the parties with regard to alleged illegal possession of the appellant on the Panchayat land. In view of the pendency of the regular enquiry, this Court declined to interfere in the order of suspension passed against the appellant. Against the said order, the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent-State was asked about status of the regular enquiry. Learned counsel, on instructions, informed that the enquiry is still pending and there is no progress in the same. It has not been disputed that the said enquiry is pending for the last more than one year and the appellant, who is elected representative, is under suspension during the said period. The new elections of the Gram Panchayat are going to be held in the month of May, 2013. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Enquiry Officer intentionally is not conducting and concluding the enquiry as he in connivance with his opponents want to deprive the appellant to contest the next elections on the pretext that the enquiry is pending against him and he is under suspension. Before us, no reasons have been given for not concluding the enquiry within the period of more than one year. It appears to us that the apprehension shown by the learned counsel for the appellant is not without any substance. Before us, no reasons have been given for not concluding the enquiry within the period of more than one year. It appears to us that the apprehension shown by the learned counsel for the appellant is not without any substance. Keeping in view these facts, including the fact that the appellant, who is a Panch, is lying under suspension for the last more than one year and the respondents have not concluded the enquiry which they are bound to conclude expeditiously, particularly when the Panch or Sarpanch is under suspension, in our view, long suspension of an elected representative, is neither in the interest of Panchayati Raj democracy nor justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, the learned Single Judge did not interfere in the order of suspension because at that time the enquiry was pending and it was in progress, but still the enquiry is going on at a snail’s pace. Moreover, the new elections of the Gram Panchayat are due in the month of May, 2013. 10. In view of the aforesaid and without commenting on the merits of the case because still the regular enquiry is pending against the appellant, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of suspension. However, it will be open for the respondents to conclude the aforesaid regular enquiry expeditiously, and if the appellant is found guilty in the said enquiry, then the respondents-authorities may proceed against him in accordance with law, under the relevant provisions of the Act. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————