DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER made a complaint against Balbir Singh, respondent No. 5, Sarpanca, Gram Panchayat, Khanna Kaurd, District Ludhiana, highlighting illegalities and irregularities commited by him, which according to the petitioner amounted to misconduct on the part of the Sarpanch and thus was liable to be removed as Sarpanch.

(2.) THE complaint was considered by the authorities and on a consideration thereof, respondent No. 5 was placed under suspension. After the matter was enquired into, he was exenerated of the charges by the Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab exercising the powers of the Directed, by order dated 1. 2. 19%. Learned Addl. Director before passing the order exonerating respondent No. 5, concluded that the Sarpanch contested the case wherever necessary and he did not work against the rights of the Panchayat. He rather fully protected the rights and interest of the Panchayat and never helped the private persons.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placing strong reliance on Ram Phal v. The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department and Ors. (1996-1)112 P. L. R. 233 (Full Bench) submitted that the complainant or whose instance the action is initiated against the Sarpanch or the Panch is entitled to file appeal as he is an aggrieved party within the meaning of Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. According to the learned counsel, an aggrieved party would mean not only a Panch or the Sarpanch against whom action is taken but would also include the complainant.