KAILASH SHARMA SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a Sarpanch of village Palri, Block Dadri, has been suspended vide orders dated July 2, 1998, which orders have been confirmed by the appellate authority vide its order dated August 18, 1998. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed.

(2.) It is pursuant to registration of a case Under Sections 332/353/186/147/149 IPC that the petitioner has been suspended as per the provisions contained in Section 51(l)(a) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The allegations against the petitioner, as culled out from FIR, Annexure P-9, reveal that the petitioner along with others on December 30, 1997, when the Head Master was teaching Class third and all other teachers were teaching other classes, at about 11 A.M. attacked the Head Master. The petitioner along with others first rang the school bell and when there was a chaos in the school, they all attacked the Head Master of the school. The Head Master was saved on account of intervention of his colleagues. While leaving the spot, petitioner and others threatened the Head Master that he would be killed.

(3.) Mr. Kundu, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are not such that might involve moral turpitude and, therefore, as per the language employed in Section 51(l)(a) of the Act petitioner could not be suspended. He further contends that vide Annexure P-7 the Government has issued instructions vide which the offences involving moral turpitude have been mentioned and inasmuch as the petitioner has not committed any offence that might fall in the list of the offences described by the Government vide Annexure P-7, he could not be suspended. We find no merit in either of the contention of the learned counsel, noted above. Section 51(l)(a) of the Act reads as follows :-