STATE OF HARYANA Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide judgment dated April 01, 1998, a learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petition, viz, CWP No. 13422 of 1997 [Reported as (1998-2)119 P.L.R. 606], filed by Inderjit Singh (now respondent in the L.P.A.), by which the order of suspension from the office of Sarpanch against Inderjit Singh was quashed. The State of Haryana filed the Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment and the Motion Bench, while admitting the L.P.A. had stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated April 01, 1998. CM. Application No. 856 of 1998 was moved by respondent-lnderjit Singh for vacating the ex-parte stay order. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, we had heard them on merits in the LP.A. as they desired that instead of deciding the CM. Application, the L.P.A. itself may be disposed of.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that Inderjit Singh, Writ Petitioner (now respondent), is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jurassi Khurd, Block Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. A case under Sections 430/379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the Sarpanch-lnderjit Singh vide FIR No. 227 dated August 14, 1996. A show cause notice was issued to him on November 13, 1996 that since a criminal case had been registered against him on August 14, 1996 and he was also arrested on August 16, 1996 and he had been granted bail, why should he be not suspended under Section 51(1)(a) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 during the pendency of the case. Reply was given that a false case had been registered against him at the behest of those persons, who had lost the election against the petitioner for the office of Sarpanch and he had never misused the canal water as he had already installed tubewell in his land. It was further stated that apart from him and his brothers there were other co-sharer in the land and only he and his brothers had been picked up by the defeated party for registering the criminal case leaving other co-sharers. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, vide order dated January 2, 1997, placed respondent-lnderjit Singh under suspension. It was observed in the order that "any Sarpanch can be suspended who is under trial in a criminal case, under Section 51(1)(a) of Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and Sh. Inderjit Singh, Sarpanch is guilty of moral turpitude." The appeal filed by Inderjit Singh against the order dated January 02, 1997 was dismissed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department on September 01, 1997. Learned Single Judge, as observed above, quashed the aforesaid orders.

(3.) Learned Single Judge has observed in his judgment that a Sarpanch can be placed under suspension if he is alleged to have committed an offence involving moral turpitude. A perusal of the FIR registered against Inderjit Singh- Respondent would show that he has been charged for unauthorised use of canal water and) according to the dictum laid down in Jwala Ram and Ors. v. State of Pepsu, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1246, unauthorised use of canal water has been held not to be an offence. For unauthorised use of canal water, enhance water charges can be charged.