HARINDERPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner remained Sarpanch of the village during the period 2008-2013. He was again elected as such in the year 2019. Soon thereafter, a complaint was made that he had embezzled funds in the year 2011 i.e. during the earlier tenure. On the basis of this complaint, he was suspended. Appeal against the order of suspension has failed and thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that suspension is governed by Sec. 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Under the said provision, a Panch or Sarpanch can be suspended for misconduct committed during the current tenure and not for any misconduct allegedly conducted during an earlier tenure. Thus, the order of suspension was illegal. He has further submitted that Sec. 216 (4) of the Act bars any action after expiry of four years from the occurrence of the loss and after expiry of two years from ceasing to be a member, whichever is later. The petitioner ceased to be a member onconclusion of his tenure in the year 2013 and thus, the bar came into effect after 2015. The complaint in this case was made in the year 2019 and could not have been entertained.

(3.) Learned State counsel submits that a detailed inquiry has been conducted after receipt of complaint and it has been found that the petitioner embezzled a sum of Rs.15,990.00 during his earlier tenure. Bar under Sec. 216(4) of the Act is not attracted as according to the said provision recovery cannot be made after the time stipulated in the said sub-sec. . Order of suspension can always be passed and thus, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity.