Section 20

Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.

Suspension and removal of Panch and Sarpanch. -- (1) The Director, may, after such enquiry as he may deem fit, remove any Sarpanch or Panch:-- (a) on any of the grounds mentioned in section 208; or (b) who refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting: or (c) who, being a Sarpanch, without reasonable cause, fails to hold meetings of the Gram Panchayat as required under sub-section (1) of section 16 for a period of two consecutive months; or (d) who, without reasonable cause, absents himself for more than two consecutive months from the meetings of the Gram Panchayat; or (e) who during his present term of office or that immediately preceding it, has, in the opinion of the Director, been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or (f) | whose continuance in office is undesirable in the interests of the public : Provided that before the Director orders the removal of any Sarpanch or Panch under this sub-section, the reasons for the proposed removal shall be communicated to him and he shall be given an opportunity of tendering an explanation in writing. Explanation: - The expression "misconduct".in clause (e) includes the failure of the Sarpanch or Panch without sufficient cause: - (i) to submit the judicial file of a case within two weeks of the receipt of order of any Court to do so; (ii) to produce the Panchayat records on being required to do so by an officer of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats not below the rank of Social Education and : Panchayat Officer; ' (ii) to carry out the lawful orders of any competent authority or an | officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf; and (iv) to supply a copy of the order of the Gram Panchayat in an administrative or judicial case decided by it, within weeks from the receipt of a valid application therefor. —yw— ————————— Eee 38 THE PUNJAB PANGHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994 (2) A person, who has been removed under sub-section (1) may be disqualified for re-election for such period not exceeding five years from the date of his removal as the Director may fix. (3) The Director may suspend any Sarpanch or Panch where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial if, in the opinion of the Director, the charge made or proceeding taken against him is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character. (4) The Director at any time, and the Deputy Commissioner or the District Development and Panchayat Officer during the course of an enquiry, may suspend a Sarpanch or Panch for any of the reasons for which he can be removed. (5) A Sarpanch or Panch, suspended under this section shall not take part in any act or proceeding of the Gram Panchayat during the period of suspension and shall hand over the records, money and other property of the Gram Panchayat in his possession or under his control to the Panch as may be elected by the Panches from amongst panches in a meeting called by the Block Development, and Panchayat Officer for this purpose. (6) Any person aggrieved by an order of removal or suspension passed under this section, may, within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order, prefer an appeal to the State Government. Comments Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(1) - Ejectment application -— Power of Sarpanch — Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is fully competent to maintain the ejectment application u/s Section 7 of the Act. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) LA.R. 298 (P&H DB). Disqualification — Removal of Sarpanch — Election te the post of Sarpanch — Right of -- Respondent was removed from the post of Sarpanch by the Director while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 20(1) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act but was not debarred from contesting election under Section 20(2) of the Act -- Argument that respondent was disqualified from the post of Sarpanch, therefore, he could mot have been allowed to contest the present election is liable to be rejected. Jaswant Singh v Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal (A.D.C.), Hoshiarpur and others, 2010(2) L.A.R. 90 (P&H). Removal of Sarpanch/Panch - Moral turpitude - Registration of F.I.R. — Pendency of criminal trial — Effect of — Whether the petitioner can be removed from the post of Panch under Section 20(1)(a) of the 1994 Act during the pendency of criminal trial — Held, only interpretation would be that if a Sarpanch/Panch is found guilty and has been convicted for any offence invelving moral turpitude or for such offence i.e., forgery in the Panchayat's record, embezzlement of Panchayat funds etc. etc. when it would not be desirable in the interest of Panchayat to permit such Panch or Sarpanch to perform the duties of Panch or Sarpanch, then it would be disqualification under Section 208(1)(c) and is liable to be removed under Section 20(1)(a) of the 1994 Act - However, if no conviclion order is passed then disqualification as provided under Section 208(1)(c) of the 1994 Act, shall not be attracted - Removal order is not only without jurisdiction but also beyond the scope of 20(1)(a) of the Act. Paramjit Kaur, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 521 (P&H). La THE PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1984 39 Suspension of Sarpanch -- Moral turpitude - Registration of F.I.R. - Pendency of criminal trial - Effect of -- Elected Sarpanch/Panch represents the society and they are the elecled representatives and role-model of the habitants of the village, therefore, they are supposed not to indulge in any criminal activities, more so, in offence punishable under the NDPS Act -- Pelitioner shall remain under suspension during the pendency of the investigation/trial, as the case may be, Paramjit Kaur, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L-A.R. 521 (P&H). Criminal case — Suspension of Panch/Sarpanch -- It is not for the authonties j under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, to give an opinion on the merit of the criminal i case, registered against the person —Registration of case involving serious offences, itself is a ground for suspension of Panch/Sarpanch -- Once it is not disputed thal the petitioner was facing trial under Sections 307, 324, 341 and 348 IPC, no error has been committed by the authorities in suspending the petilioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of the Act. Tejbalkar Singh v. Stale of Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R, 181 (P&H). i Suspension of Sarpanch — Sarpanch may be placed under suspension for the | reasons, for which he can be removed — Held, if there is no ground for removal then of | course there can be no order of suspension. Kaki Devi Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and | others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 160 (P&H). Encroachment upon land — No action by Sarpanch — Suspension of Sarpanch — Legality of - If a person is found in an unauthorized occupation of property belonging to any local authority then that person shall be declared disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Panchayat - No provisions under the Act, which empowers the State or the Director Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab to disqualify a person to be a member on the ground thal no action was taken by him against the encroachers for some time — Petitioner was. not found in illegal possession K of any public land -- Provision of Section 208(1)(k) of the Act is not attracted -- Hence, f there is no ground for removal u/s 20(1)(a) of the Act, consequently, petitioner can not be placed under suspension by invoking Section 20(4) of the Act. Kaki Devi Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) LA.R. 160 (P&H). ” Suspension of Sarpanch — Removal of Sarpanch — If a Sarpanch/Panch is found quilty and has been convicted for any offence involving moral turpitude or for such offence i.e., forgery in the Panchayal's record, embezzlement of Panchayat funds etc. when it would nol be desirable in the interest of Panchayat to permit such Panch or Sarpanch to perform the duties of Panch or Sarpanch, then it would be disqualification u/s 208(1}(c) and is liable to be removed u/s 20(1)(a) of the 1994 Act, however, if no ‘ conviction order is passed then disqualification as provided under Section 208(1)(c) of the 1994 Act, shall not be attracted — Therefore, the removal order passed against the petitioner is not only without jurisdiction but also beyond the scope of Section 20(1)(a) of the 1994 Act. Paramjit Kaur, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and others, i 2012(2) L.A.R. 55 (P&H). * { Suspension of Sarpanch — Removal of Sarpanch — Having possession of any narcotic substance ig a Serious offence and amounts to moral turpitude -- Elected Sarpanch/Panch represents the society and they are the elected representatives and role-model of the habitants of the village, therefore, they are supposed not to indulge in : any criminal activities, more so, in offence punishable under the NDPS Act — Removal order is liable to be quashed, however, the petitioner shall remain under suspension during the pendency of the investigation/trial, as the case may be. Paramjit Kaur, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 55 (P&H). Writ jurisdiction -- De-notification of Sarpanch — Wegal order -- Totally illegal order contrary to provisions of the statute and State Government denotifying the name of private respondent as Sarpanch by notification - Held, the same was rightly challenged by filing the writ petition and the Court was fully justified in allowing the said petition. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 6 (P&H DB). rr 40 THE PUNJAB PANCHAYAT! RAJ ACT, 1994 Removal of Panch - Complainant — Right of -- In pursuance of the complaint made by the complainant and on the basis of reports, the Director removed the Panch — Appellate authority accepted the appeal without impleading the complainant as a party = Held, since the complainant was the aggrieved party, so the appellate authority slipped into a legal error in accepting the appeal of private respondent, even without issuing notice to complainant, who was a necessary party -- Matter remitted back to Appellate authority. Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) LAR. 188 (P&H). Removal of Panch -- Director removed Panch on two counts that he and other Members Panchayat have caused huge loss to the government grant and damage to the panchayat propery -- Appellate authority accepted his appeal, without deciding the subject matter of the lis by passing a non-speaking and non-reasoned order -- Held, Appellate authority ought to have discussed the material on record and was legally required to record valid reasons for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in the right perspective — Matter remitted back to Appellate authority. Ashok Kumar v. Stale of Punjab and others, 2012(1) LAIR. 188 (P&H). Writ jurisdiction -- Suspension of Sarpanch —- Removal of Sarpanch — Order containing valid reasons cannot legally be interfered with, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. unless and until. the same is perverse and without jurisdiction -- As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out, therefore, ihe impugned order deserves lo be maintained. Guddu Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Saunti and other v. State of Punjab and olhers, 2011(3) L.A.R. 180 (P&H), Aggrieved party - Appeal by complainant — Maintainability of -- Suspension of Sarpanch - Removal of Sarpanch - Complainant is an aggrieved person -- Appeal filed by complainant was very much maintainable before the appellate authority. Darshan Singh's case 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 170 (Full Bench) & Ram Phal's case 1996 (1) PLR 233 relied. Guddu Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Saunti and other v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) LA.R. 180 (P&H). Appeal by complainant - Aggrieved party -— Suspension of Sarpanch — Removal of Sarpanch - Complainant is an aggrieved person -- Appeal filed by complainant was very much maintainable before the appellate authority. Darshan Singh’s case 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 170 (Full Bench) & Ram Phal's case 1996 (1) PLR 233 relied. Guddu Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Saunti and other v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 180 (P&H). Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Preliminary Enquiry - Exoneration from charges — Regular enquiry — Power of Enquiry officer -- It cannot possibly be saith thal once the petitioner was exonerated on the basis of preliminary enquiry by the Appellate Authority, without impleading the complainant as a party, then the Enquiry Officer becomes functus officio and cannot proceed with the regular enquiry -— Enquiry Officer has rightly summoned the petitioner and he has power and jurisdiction to conduct the regular enquiry against her in this context. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H). Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Preliminary Enquiry -- Exoneration from charges - Regular enquiry - Scope of -- Taking cognizance of the report of the preliminary enquiry, the Director suspended the Sarpanch, as an interim measure — Sarpanch was reinstated by the Appellate Authority, without impleading the complainant as a party or providing opportunity of being heard to him, on a technical ground, but that ipso facto is not a ground to exonerate, on the basis of preliminary enquiry, unless she is found innocent during the course of regular enquiry in this relevant connection. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H) Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Preliminary enquiry — Regular Enquiry — Scope of ~ Scape of preliminary enquiry relevant for ihe purpose of suspension of Sarpanch, is entirely distinct, than that of the regime of regular enquiry, for the purpose i THE PUNJAB PANCHAYAT! RAJ ACT, 1994 4] of removal of Sarpanch -- At the time of preliminary enquiry, a prima facie case is to be considered for a limited purpose of suspension, while during the course of regular enquiry, the matter has to be examined in detail, after receiving the evidence in support of respective stands of the parties, for the purpose of removal of a Sarpanch — Authority conducting the regular enquiry possesses a wider jurisdiction, as compared with the officer dealing with the preliminary enquiry -- Preliminary enquiry conducted in a summary manner during the course of limited junsdiction, cannot oust the larger jurisdiction of a officer conducting the regular enquiry. even if both the enquiries are manned by the same person -- Authority dealing with the regular enquiry has to adopt the appropriate procedure and in the preliminary enquiry, summary procedure is to be followed. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H). Constitution of India, Article 226 — Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch — Regular Enquiry - Writ Jurisdiction -— Since regular inquiry is pending against the petitioner, therefore, the court not inclined to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see the correctness of the suspension order on the basis of preliminary inquiry. wherein petitioner was prima facie found guilty for the charges Gurcharan Singh, Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 535 (P&H). Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch — Challenge to -- Enquiry — Right of - Sarpanch/Panch can be placed under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry for the alleged misconduct committed by him — There is mo question af keeping him under suspension for the indefinite period — Direction given to initiate and hold the enquiry for the alleged misconduct and to conclude the same after affording oppartunity to the petitioner, preferably within four months and if petitioner is not found guilty for the alleged misconduct, suspension order will go -- However, if enquiry 1s not concluded within four months as directed, impugned orders shall be deemed to have been set aside. Gunjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others. 2011(2) L.A.R. 418 (P&H). Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch — Suspension order cannot be kept in force for PE Nese i indefinite period and shall be only for the period when regular inquiry is pending agains! 7 the Panch/Sarpanch -- Regular inquiry has already been marked — Authorities directed j to conclude the final inquiry within 90 days and if inquiry Is not completeiconcluded within the time prescribed, suspension order shall be deemed having been revoked on the expiry of 90 days -- However, if in the final inquiry charges against the petitioner are found proved, authorities shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Gurcharan Singh, Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 535 (P&H). Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch — Appeal against — Speaking order -- Appellate authority not adhered to the actual grounds of removal mentioned in the order of the Director based on the report of regular inquiry of ADC — Real controversy between the parties was nol decided — Held, order is non-speaking, appellate authonty ought to have discussed the malenal on record -- Such statutory appellate authority, exercising the powers under the Act, should act independently -- Every action of such authority must be informed by reasans -- Order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in ihe interest of justice and fair play -- Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the valuable democratic nghts of the parties are involved in the lis. Baldip Pal Singh and another v Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Gowt, and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 270 (P&H). Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch — Appeal -— Review application by complainant — Single line order “Review application is not liable to be accepted therefore, it is dismissed” cannot possibly be termed to be a proper adjudication of rights of the complainants in the appeal -- Contention that review application of complainants was dismissed, so, they would be deemed to be parties in the appeal. is not only devoid of ment but misplaced as well. Baldip Pal Singh and another v Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Govt. and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 270 (P&H). etn mg seen a pe 4? THE PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT. 1994 Suspension/Removal of Sar anch - Appeal against - Necessary party - Complainant is necessary party -- In view of the complaint and on the basis of inquiry reports, the Director removed respondent from the post of Sarpanch — Appeal was filed without impleading the complainants as parties — Held, complainants were the aggrieved parties, so the appellate authority slipped into a legal error in accepting the appeal, even withoul issuing notice to complainant, who were the necessary parties -- Appellate authonty ought to have issued notice and provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the complainants before deciding the appeal against them in view of the doctrine of audi alteram partem Baldip Pal Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Govt and others, 2011(2) LAR, 270 (P&H). Aggrieved Party -- Appeal — Under Section 20 (6) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj 7 Act, 1994, it is only a person “aggrieved by an order of removal or suspension” can file an appeal. Thus, a complainant does not have the night to do so. There is no infirmity in the view taken by the appellate Authority — Gram Panchayat, Dusanjh Khurd Vis State of Punjab and others 2002 (2) PLR 183 (P&H High Court DB) = 2002(2) RCR(Ciwil) 65(P&H High Court DB). Aggrieved person — Only a person aggrieved by the order of removal or suspension, may within period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order may prefer an appeal to the Slate Government - No order of removal of suspension has been passed against the petitioner as he is only the complainant — It is i: only aggneved person against whom a order of suspension of removal has been t passed has a nght to file an appeal against the order and no other — Darshan Singh V/s State of Punjab and others 1998(1)PLR 152(P&H High Court DIB). Audi alteram partem -- Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch — Expression “adequate opponunity to explain” represents statutory embodiment of one of the fundamental | postulates of natural justice Le audi alteram partem which signifies that an authority i entrusted with power to lake action against any person should give an action-oriented nalice to that person, consider his reply and pass order indicaling application of mind. Smt. Zarina v. State of Haryana and Another, 2004 L.A.R. 506 (P&H D.B.) Complaint against Panch Speaking order — Director without giving any reason held thal no case is made out against Panch - Order is tolally non-speaking and a | therefore, unsustainable — Authority should have passed an order informed by reasons and not bereft thereof. MJ. Sivani’s case, 1995 (6) SCC 289 (SC) relied. Dilbag Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2070(1) L.A.R. 411 (P&H). Defaulter -- Onus of prove - The onus is heavy on the election petitioner to prove that the elected candidate is a defaulter -- I ig not a matter of inference which can be drawn on the basis of oral evidence. Ravinder v Rattan Singh and Others, 2004 L AR. | 674 (P&H). i Disqualification — Suspension/Removal af Sarpanch -- incurring of disqualification under section 208 can be the grounds upon which a Member of Panchayat can be suspended or removed from the office. Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi ete., 2006(1) LAR. 376 (P&H DB). Disqualification — The accounts on the basis of which the liability of arrears 'S sought ta be raised by the Gram Panchayal cannot be relied upan as lhe account books are not found to be maintained in normal course of its business — Deposit of amount of default by elected candidate to avoid controversy regarding contest of election to the post of Sarpanch, is not amount to admission of default Ravinder v. Rattan Singh and Others, 2004 L.A.R. 674 (P&H) Disqualification - The elected candidate received the amount of arrears from whom the arrears lowards the Gram Panchayat were due -- He was trustee of the amount received on behalf of the Panchayat and cannot be treated as defaulter of arrears. Ravinder v, Rattan Singh anc Others, 2004 L.A.R. 674 (P&H) Natural justice -- Suspension of Sarpanch -- Registration of F.LR. against 1 Sarpanch — Sarpanch should be given an opportunity of hearing before passing an THE PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994 43 order of suspension against b.m — He is an elected Sarpanch and therefore, has a legal right to continue as such, unless disqualified, removed or ousted on a vote of no confidence etc. in accordance with law. Chand v. Special Secretary lo Govt. of Punjab, Rural Dev. & Panchayats Deptt., Chandigarh and others, 2005(1) L.A.R, 352 (P&H D.B.). Registration of FIR -- Suspension of Sarpanch — Show cause notice - Speaking order -- Natural justice -- Since the Sarpanch was not issued any show cause notice nor was he granted any opportunity of hearing before passing the suspension order, the i same is liable to be quashed — Order cannot be upheld as. the same is not supported by 44 any cogent reasons as to how the continuance of the petitioner would be an ! embarrassment either to himself or the Panchayat. Chand v. Special Secretary to Govt of Punjab, Rural Dev. & Panchayats Deptt., Chandigarh and others, 2005(1) L.A.R. 352 (P&H D.B.). Re-instatement of Sarpanch — Writ Jurisdiction -- Grants have been disbursed to the persons concemed on the basis of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat as a whole and not by the Sarpanch alone — Besides, the grants have been disbursed after getting the necessary approval from the authorities concemed — Still further, there i are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided by exercising extra-ordinary ' powers — Petition challenging the order of reinstatement of Sarpanch — Dismissed — ! Constitution of India, Article 226 - Balwant Singh Vis State of Punjab 2002 (2) PLR 31(P&H High Court DB) = 2002(2)RCR (ewil) 838 (P&H High Court DB) Removal of Sarpanch — Enquiry Report -- Unauthorised possession of shamiat land — Neither enquiry report supplied nor any opportunity of hearing was offered -- Removal of Sarpanch, who represents the whole village is a serious matter which should not be taken lightly -- Enquiry officer was duty bound to give copy of enquiry to the petitioner - Sarpanch cannot he held liable for civil decree passed during period or previous Panchayat, as those whoa were controlling the Gram Panchayat at the relevant time did not take any action for getting the decree set aside within statutory period of limitation — Gram Panchayat sought funds from Gram Samiti to take action against other un-autherised occupants, but the amount was not released -- Impugned orders quashed. Jagtar Singh v. State of Haryana and another 2004 L.A.R. 47 (P&H DB) Removal of Sarpanch - Incurring of disqualification under section 208 can be the grounds upon which a Member of Panchayat can be suspended or removed from ihe office. Som Lal v. Vijay Lax etc., 2006(1) L ALR. 376 (P&H D.B.). Removal of Sarpanch - Only a person aggrieved by the order of removal or suspension, mai within period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order may prefer an appeal to the Stale Government — No order of removal or suspension has been passed against the petitioner as he is only the complainant — It is only aggrieved person against whom a order of suspension or removal has been passed has a right to file an appeal against the order and no other — Darshan Singh W/s State of Punjab and others 1998(1)PLR 152(P&H High Court DB) Removal or Suspension of Sarpanch - Appeal — Aggrieved Party -- Under 5 Section 20 (6) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, it is only a person “aggrieved by ‘ an order of removal or suspension” can file an appeal. Thus, a complainant does nat | have the right to do so. There is no infirmity in the view taken by the appellate Authority u" — Gram Panchayat, Dusanjh Khurd V/s State of Punjab and others 2002 (2) PLR 183 (P&H High Court DB) = 2002/2) RCR(Civil) 65(P&H High Court DB). Second Complaint — Second Enquiry - Suspension of Sarpanch -- In earlier complaint positive finding was given by the competent officer that the Sarpanch was not guilty -- Unless thal order is rectified or set aside, il is not open to the authorities ta initiate second enquiry on those very charges Harvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(1) L.A.R. 227 (P&H D.B) Second Complaint - Second Enquiry - Suspension of Sarpanch -- On receipt of a fresh complaint, second enquiry was conducted, wherein Sarpanch found guilty and 5 Ad THE PUNJAB PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994 was put under suspension — Held, It is not open to the authorities to initiate fresh enquiry on the same charges, regarding which the Sarpanch was exonerated in earlier enquiry, which has become final. Harvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(1) L.A.R. 227 (P&H DB) Second Enquiry — Suspension of Sarpanch -- In earlier complaint positive finding was given by the competent officer that the Sarpanch was not guilty -- Unless that order is rectified or set aside, it is not open to the authorities to initiate second enquiry on those very charges. Harvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(1) LA.R. 227 (P&H D.B.). Second Enquiry — Suspension of Sarpanch -— On receipt of a fresh complaint, second enquiry was conducted, wherein Sarpanch found guilly and was put under suspension — Held, It is not open to the authorities to initiate fresh enquiry on the same charges, regarding which the Sarpanch was exonerated in earlier enquiry, which has become final. Harvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(1) L.A.R. 227 (P&H D.B.). Suspension and removal of Sarpanch -- If a Sarpanch is elected under the Panchayati Raj Act by the Panches, he can only be removed by passing no confidence motion against him under Section 19 or by the Director under Section 20 on Ihe grounds mentioned therein. Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB) Suspension of Panch — No proceedings have been initiated for any unauthorized occupation of land either against the petitioner's husband or her father-in-law. The basis on which the suspension order passed non-existent — Orders of suspension can not be sustained — Joginder Kaur Vis State of Punjab and other 2001(3) PLR 531 (P&H High Cour) = 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 735(P&H)(DB). Suspension of Sarpanch - incurring of disqualification under section 208 can be the grounds upon which a Member of Panchayat can be suspended or removed from the office. Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi etc., 2006(1) LA.R. 376 (P&H D.B.). Suspension of Sarpanch — Natural justice -- Registration of F.I.R. against Sarpanch - Sarpanch should be given an opportunity of hearing before passing an order of suspension against him -- He is an elected Sarpanch and therefore, has a legal fight to continue as such, unless disqualified, removed or ousted on a vote of no confidence etc. in accordance with law. Chand v. Special Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Rural Dev. & Panchayats Deptt., Chandigarh and others, 2005(1) L.A.R. 352 (P&H D.B.). Suspension of Sarpanch -- On receipt of a fresh complaint, second enquiry was conducted, wherein Sarpanch found guilty and was put under suspension — Held. It is not open to the authorities to initiate fresh enquiry on the same charges. regarding which the Sarpanch was exonerated in earlier enquiry, which has become final. Harvinder Kaur v, State of Punjab and others, 2007(1) LAR. 227 (P&H DB) Suspension of Sarpanch -- Only a person aggrieved by the order of removal or suspension, may within period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order may prefer an appeal to the State Government - No order of removal or suspension has been passed against the petitioner as he is only the complainant - Ils only aggrieved person against whom a order of suspension or removal has been passed has a right to file an appeal against the order and no other — Darshan Singh Vis State of Punjab and others 1998(1)PLR 152(P&H High Court DB). Suspension of Sarpanch — Registration of FIR -- Show cause notice - Speaking order -- Natural justice -- Since the Sarpanch was nol issued any show cause notice nor was he granted any opportunity of heanng before passing the suspension order, the same is liable ta be quashed — Order cannot be upheld as the same is not supported by any cogent reasons as to how the continuance of the petitioner would be an embarrassment either to himself or the Panchayat. Chand v. Special Secretary to Gov. a THE PUNJAB PANCHAYAT! RAJ ACT, 1994 45 of Punjab, Rural Dev. & Panchayats Deptt.. Chandigarh and others, 2005(1) L.A.R. 352 (P&H D.B.) Suspension of Sarpanch — Unauthorised possession --Mathematical precision with regard to an encroachment of a small piece of land cannot be made the basis for suspension of a Sarpanch -- Even if it is taken to be correct that the petitioner had encroached upon an area of 5 Biswasi of Khasra No, 440, such a mistake can occur at any time more particularly when land is under cultivation. Tejinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) L.A.R. 395 (P&H DB). Suspension of Sarpanch/ Panch — Alleged illegal construction! encroachment on panchayal land was raised 30/35 year back by father-in-law of the petitioner/Panch — Petitioner cannot be held liable for that - Suspension order set aside. Smit. Zarina v State of Haryana and Another, 2004 L.A.R. 506 (P&H D.B.). Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch — Audi alferam partem -- Expression “adequate opportunity to explain" represents statulory embodiment of one of the fundamental postulates of natural justice ie. audi alleram partem which signifies that an authority entrusted with power to take action against any person should give an action-oriented nolice to that person, consider his reply and pass order indicating application of mind. Sm. Zarina v. Stale of Haryana and Another, 2004 L.A.R. 506 (P&H D.B.). Unauthorised possession -- Suspension of Sarpanch — Mathematical precision with regard to an encroachment of a small piece of land cannot be made the basis for suspension -of a Sarpanch — Even if it is taken to be correct that the petitioner had encroached upon an area of 5 Biswasi of Khasra No. 440, such a mistake can occur al any time more particularly when land is under cultivation. Tejinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) L.A.R. 395 (P&H DB). Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 (1 of 1698), Section 15, 17 - Suspension/ Removal/Death of Sarpanch — Substitution of functionaries -- Authorised Panch = Power of -- All the duties and functions to be performed by the office of the Sarpanch shall also be performed by the authorised Panch having charge of the office of the Sarpanch -- Every authorised Panch to officiate the office of Sarpanch shall have same powers for the period he remains in the office, which usually can be exercised by the Sarpanch., Jeet Singh Panch v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 252 (P&H). Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 (1 of 1898), Section 15, 17 - Suspension/ Removal/Death of Sarpanch — Substitution of functionaries -- Authorised Panch — Power of -- Suspension of Sarpanch does not mean that entire development works of the village shall not be allowed to proceed with -- Authorised Panch can spend money for the development work in the village as per valid resolution and prevailing law during the period Sarpanch remains suspended or post of Sarpanch remains unfilled due to suspension, removal or death of elected Sarpanch. Jeet Singh Panch v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 252 (P&H).