KASHMIRI LAL Vs. DY COMMISSIONER SONEPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a Panch or Sarpanch is entitled to an opportunity of hearing before an order is passed by the authority in question suspending him under Section 102(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the Haryana State Legislature, is the significant question that falls for consideration in the two writ petitions Nos. 94 and 422 of 1979- Civil Writ No, 422 of 1979 was ordered to se listed along with Civil Writ No. 94 of 1979 and Civil Writ No. 94 of 1979 was admitted to Full Bench by the motion Bench as the ratio of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Suresh Chand v. Director of Panchayats, Haryana 1979 Pun LJ 116, which had held that a Panch or Sarpanch before being suspended under Section 102(1) of the Act by the authority competent to suspend him is entitled to a notice, came to be doubted in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1978 Pun LJ 403.

(2.) The Full Bench in Gurcharan Singh's case was considering the requirement of Section 27(1-A) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (25 of 1961) inserted by Haryana Act No. 22 of 1972, which along with the main provision of Section 27(1) of the said Act, is reproduced below:

(3.) The abovesaid provisions were considered analogous to the old provision of Section 102(1) of the Act by the Full Bench in Gurcharan Singh's case (supra) and, therefore, the interpretation put on these provisions by this Court in various Single and Division Bench decisions was approved and it was held that where the suspension-order was passed under S. 27(1-A) of the Co-operative Societies Act, no opportunity of hearing in law was contemplated. In this regard, the following observations of the Full Bench in Gurcharan Singh's case would be instructive: