LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-121

GURBAKSH KAUR Vs. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

Decided On March 27, 2017
Gurbaksh Kaur Appellant
V/S
JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 05.05.2015 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 17.06.2015 (Annexure P-7), whereby he has been suspended from the post of Sarpanch on the ground that against the unauthorized occupants, no action has been intiated.

(2.) Mr. R.S. Bains, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a show cause notice dated 14.10.2014 for not having taken any action was served upon the petitioner, whereas the petitioner had already taken an action by filing a petition under Sections 4, 5 & 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Act, for eviction of the unauthorized occupants on 09.10.2014. A preliminary inquiry dated 18.02015 does not notice this fact, resulting into, suspension order dated 17.06.2015 (Annexure P-7). In this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the 1994 Act') and as well as the Section 208 of the 1994 Act to contend that the conditions prescribed for removal of the Sarpanch had to be adhered/followed in strict senso and in support of his contentions, also relies upon the ratio decidendi culled out by this Court rendered in "Kaki Devi Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others" 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 317, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the impugned orders under challenge.

(3.) On the contrary, Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G., Punjab has referred to the complaint dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure R-1/T) made by the Villagers with regard to the encroachment, the notice dated 108.2014 (Annexure R-2/T) issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to the petitioner, statement (Annexure R-3/T), complaint dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure R-4/T) and as well as the inquiry dated 11.08.2015 (Annexure R-5/T) held in pursuance to the suspension order, to contend that the basis/foundation of suspension had been found to be proved in the regular inquiry, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the present writ petition.