DEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who as per the version made in this petition, happens to be a member of Panchayat Samiti Block, Kharar, district Ropar, by virtue of Annexure P-6 has been suspended by the Director Panchayats vide order dated 29. 5. 1995 Under Section 20 (l) (4) and 29 (3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 from the post of Sarpanch of the said Panchayat and was restrained from participating in the proceedings of the panchayat. It was also ordered that the record of the Gram Panchayat in his possession should be given to the Additional Panch or the Panchayat Secretary. Aggrieved of the said order an appeal was preferred by him before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayats, who heard the petitioner and other side in detail and found that the petitioner was involved among other offences for an offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he had been charge sheeted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar and is standing trial before that court. It was, therefore observed that as the petitioner as a Sarpanch had to perform number of important judicial, executive and administrative functions therefore, he being involved in a case Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not deemed to hold the confidence of the people to perform any work and therefore, it was held that he had been rightly suspended.

(2.) AGGRIEVED of the order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on various grounds. It was canvassed at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before the order of suspension it was imperative upon the authorities i. e. Director Panchayats that he should have given a notice to the petitioner and after an opportunity of hearing was afforded to him then only such an order could be passed.

(3.) THE very language of Section 102 (1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act is retained in sub-clause (3) of Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which reads as under :