GODAWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned orders are purported to have been issued under Section 20(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. The contention of all the petitioners in this case is that they are all Panches in the Village Khama and for alleged non- support in development works as well as in Court cases, they had been directed to be suspended from the respective posts. The impugned order had observed, it would not be in the interest of panchayat if these Panches remained in that post. The contention of all the petitioners is that no enquiry has been conducted against the alleged misconduct and the order of suspension has been passed as though the misconduct had been established and they were therefore required to be suspended immediately.

(2.) The power of suspension provided under Section 20(4) is in a sense transitory in character. The relevant provision reads as follows :-

(3.) The Director has perforce to grant an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing before the power of removal is exercised on the proof of the misconduct. Section 20(4) shall therefore be read in that context that during the course of such enquiry, he shall have the power to suspend. The power to suspend cannot be exercised as thought it is the punishment in itself. The impugned order does not also set out anywhere that there is a contemplated action for enquiry into misconduct or removal. On the other hand, it reads that a misconduct was established and he was ordering suspension. The impugned order is clearly in violation of the law and the impugned orders passed against the petitioners, are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.