Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Ors. vs Inderjit Singh on 9 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)121PLR187
JUDGMENT R.S. Mongia, J.
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.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the offence with which respondent-lnderjit Singh is charged is of theft of canal water which constitutes moral turpitude. He submitted that if the offence, as alleged in the FIR, does not involve moral turpitude, then the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be assailed.
5. It may be observed here that respondent-lnderjit Singh had filed a petition in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR. The learned Judge while dismissing the petition observed that "thus, it is obvious that if the accused persons have unauthorizedly used canal water from the aforementioned canal, they are liable to pay special charges for its unauthorised use but they are also liable to pay the water rate otherwise chargeable as well as to penalty that may be imposed under Section 58 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974."
6. Section 51 of the Act, which provides for suspension and removal of a Sarpanch, is in the following terms :-
"51. Suspension and removal of a Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch or Panch.- (1) The Director or the Deputy Commissioner concerned may suspend any Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch or Panch as the case may be;
(a) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial, if in the opinion of the Director, or Deputy Commissioner concerned 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'
(b) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx xx Provided the suspension of a Panch, Up-Sarpanch or Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall not exceed six months from the date of issuance of suspension order except criminal cases involving moral turpitude."
7. Learned counsel for the appellants did not contest that the allegations in the FIR are that respondent-lnderjit Singh had unauthorizedly used the canal water. In the judgment of the apex Court (supra) it had held, while considering the provisions of Pepsu Sirhind Canal and Western Jamuna Canal Rules (Enforcement and Validation) Act, that unauthorised use of canal water is not an offence. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge held that at the most, respondent could be charged enhanced water charges as per the provisions of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act and the offence, as alleged, did not constitute moral turpitude. We are in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. According to us, whether the respondent had committed an offence or not need not be gone into this case, but the offence, as alleged would not constitute moral turpitude and, therefore, no suspension could be ordered and in any case the case could not have gone beyond six months as per the provisions of Section 51 (2) of the Act (supra).
8. Learned counsel for the appellants also could not say as to whether any proceedings have been taken against the respondent for his removal from the office of Sarpanch on the basis of the alleged offence against him. More than two years have passed when the FIR was registered against the respondent-inderjit Singh and till date, as per the counsel for the parties, even challan has not been put in. The authorities will be well advised to expedite the disposal of the criminal case against respondent-lnderjit Singh.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
10. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, no orders are necessary to be separately passed on the C.M. Application No. 856 of 1998.