RATTI RAM Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RATTI Ram has questioned the validity and propriety of order passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner suspending him from his office as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ballopur in the these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner was elected a Sarpanch of village Ballopur in the last elections held in December, 1963 The Deputy Commissioner later framed certain charges against the petitioner and by an order of 7th of November, 1964 and directed that he should be suspended during the inquiry that is still to be held against the petitioner. It is true that in the order of suspension it is mentioned that the charges have been found "proved" but it is clear that an inquiry is pending as explained in paragraph 6 of the written -statement. It is only during the pendency of the inquiry that the petitioner has been suspended. According to amended sub -section (1) of section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, the Deputy Commissioner may during the course of an inquiry suspend a Panch for any of the reasons for which he can be removed. It is to be remembered that the order of suspension is not an order of removal. The appropriate show cause notice has already been served on the petitioner in respect of the inquiry for his removal. In substance the order of suspension is based on prima facie view of the charges which have been framed and the Deputy Commissioner is the sole authority to judge whether pending an inquiry, a person should be suspended from service. There is no breach of the statutory provisions or the rules of natural justice in making the order of suspension without a show -cause notice. An order of suspension endures only until it is decided that a person is not to be charged with a disciplinary offence or until disciplinary proceedings are concluded.