GURDEEP SINGH SARPANCH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the allegation enquired into, by way of preliminary enquiry, could have been changed at the stage of regular enquiry, so as to remove the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch is the pivotal issue involved in the present case, which falls for consideration of this Court. The facts, which are hardly in dispute, are that pursuant to the panchayat election held in the respondent-State in the month of May 2008, petitioner came to be elected as Sarpanch. Smt. Satwant Kaur was Sarpanch from 2003 to 2008. A complaint was moved against her by Sh. Nachhatar Singh, present Panch of the Gram Panchayat and one Rachhpal Singh. The complaint was entrusted for preliminary enquiry to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Panchayati Raj, Ferozepur, who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 13.4.2009 (Annexure P-1). However, there was no allegation against the petitioner. Although, the enquiry officer was not conducting any enquiry on any complaint against the petitioner, yet, he made an unwarranted reference in the last two lines of the report that a sum of ' 1,47,790/- was recoverable from the present Sarpanch, because the work for which that amount was withdrawn, was not executed at the site. The above-said enquiry report was forwarded to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab-respondent No. 2, vide Annexure P-2.

(2.) Although, neither there was any complaint nor there was any enquiry against the petitioner and he was never associated in the enquiry proceedings, yet a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner, vide Annexure P-3 dated 1.9.2009. Vide Annexure P-4, petitioner submitted his self-contained reply to the show-cause notice. Having not been satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner filed his appeal, wherein the enquiry officer was directed to submit his enquiry report to the Director within a period of three months, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 22.3.2010 (Annexure P-5). The suspension order (Annexure P-5) as well as appellate order (Annexure P-6) were challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of CWP No. 9562 of 2010, wherein suspension of the petitioner was stayed by this Court. Regular enquiry was completed against the petitioner vide Annexure P-7, which was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, vide Annexure P-8, for appropriate action.

(3.) Consequently, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, passed the removal order dated 26.8.2010 (Annexure P-9) because of which, the petitioner withdrew his above-said writ petition with a view to file appeal against the removal order. Petitioner filed his appeal before the Financial Commissioner. During the pendency of his appeal before respondent No. 1, petitioner filed CWP No. 8729 of 2012 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.5.2012 directing respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of four months. Appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure P-10). However, the appeal of the petitioner was not decided on merits but only on account of delay.