(1.) By this judgment we shall dispose of two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, namely, Civil Writ Nos. 2405 and 2670 of 1969, the petitioner in the former being Nirmal Singh, Sarpanch of village Bullowal, and in the latter Vasakha Singh, Sarpanch of village Ahlupur, each one of whom has been suspended from the officer of Sarpanch under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) by the concerned Deputy Commissioner whose action in that behalf is challenged before us.
(2.) The relevant part of Section 102 may be set out for facility of reference :
(3.) On behalf of the petitioners it is not denied that the Director of Panchayats, acting in the exercise of the powers delegated to him under Section 95 of the Act by the State Government, did order an enquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 102 of the Act against each one of the petitioners before the relevant order of suspension was passed against him, the enquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner concerned. It is urged on their behalf, however, that the Deputy Commissioner concerned had no jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension under sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Act until and unless he had done some overt act in furtherance of the enquiry ordered by the Director. In Civil Writ No. 2405 of 1969 the order of suspension (Annexure 'A') of the petitioner mentioned that a show cause notice detailing the charges against him had been issued to him by post on the 24th of June, 1969, but had been returned by the post office with a report of the same date that the petitioner had refused to receive it. The case of the petitioner was that no such notice had been issued to him. However, it was urged on his behalf that even if such a notice had been issued, it could not be said to have been issued "in the course of an enquiry" within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Act.