KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUCCINCTLY, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that in the wake of general Gram Panchayat elections held in the year 2008, Daler Singh son of Gurdeep Singh (respondent No.4) was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Hariao Khurd, District Patiala, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

(2.) PETITIONER claimed that as respondent No.4 was not performing his duty and encouraged unauthorized encroachment of the Gram Panchayat land, therefore, he (petitioner) and other complainants made two different complaints against him to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats (respondent No.2.) (for brevity "the Director"). The inquiry was marked by the Director to Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad (respondent No.3). After completion of the inquiry, respondent No.3 submitted his report dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure P1) to the Director. After perusal of the report and other material on record, the Director suspended the Sarpanch (respondent No.4) with immediate effect and was further debarred from participating in any proceeding of the Gram Panchayat in future, by virtue of order dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P2).

(3.) THE petitioner-complainant Karnail Singh did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P3), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.