SAKTU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been referred to for consideration by a Full Bench on the ground that there are two conflicting Division Bench judgements reported in Suresh Chand v. Director of Panchayat, Haryana, 1979 Pun LT 116 and Ram Saroop v. Director of Panchayat, Haryana, 1983 Pun LJ 350 on the question whether a complainant is to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before revoking an order of suspension made under S.102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1953 (the Act in short), as applicable to the State of Haryana. Before we go into the real question that has been referred to, we may notice a few facts which relate to the filing of the writ petition.

(2.) The third respondent Mukh Ram is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kail, P.O. Jagadhri, District Ambala. On the ground that he has occupied unauthorisedly Gram Panchayat land, the petitioner made a complaint to the Director of Panchayats, Haryana, against the Sarpanch : A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director Panchayats, Haryana and in his preliminary report dated July 15, 1985, he held that there were prima facie grounds for holding the Sarpanch guilty of some of the allegations and that a regular enquiry could be ordered. On July 19, 1985, accepting the report of the Deputy Director, the Director ordered an enquiry under S.102 of the Gram Panchayat Act and appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naraingarh as Enquiry Officer. On the same day, pending the enquiry he suspended the third respondent on the ground that the charges against him are so serious in nature that if it is proved, he would be liable to be removed from the office of Sarpanch and that restraining him from participating in any proceedings of the Gram Panchayat till further order was necessary. Even before the enquiry had been completed on August 14, 1985, the Director cancelled the order of suspension and reinstated the Sarpanch forthwith, without prejudice to the enquiry pending against him. Against this order of the Director dated August 14, 1985, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the Commissioned under S.102(5) of the Act. Though the Commissioner originally stayed the rescinding order of suspension pending the appeal, later on he dismissed the appeal itself and revoked the stay order holding that it was not necessary for the Director to have issued a notice to the petitioner before issuing the order of vacation of suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing the order of revocation dated August 14, 1985 as confirmed by the order of the Commissioner in appeal on December 23, 1985, on various grounds.

(3.) One of the points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition was that notice should have been issued to him before the Director revoking the order of suspension. In this behalf, he relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Suresh Chand's case, (1979 Pun LJ 116) (supra). Though this judgement is dated Nov. 22, 1978, the Division Bench had not noticed an earlier Division Bench judgement dated Feb. 1, 1977, taking a contrary view. That may be because that was not reported at that time. The earlier Division Bench decision dated Feb. 1, 1977, has since been reported in Ram Saroop's case, (1983 Pun LJ 350) (supra). Before we consider that judgement and the authorities, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions in the Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana. Section 102, which is the relevant provision, reads as follows :