Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Jaikam vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 October, 2011
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Writ Petition No.18779 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.18779 of 2011
Date of Decision:04.10.2011
Shri Jaikam ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Babbar Bhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, petitioner-Jaikam son of Sultan was elected as a Sarpanch of village Bhajlaka, District Mewat, in view of the provisions of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). A criminal case was registered against him vide FIR No.370 dated 04.11.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 436, 506 and 34 IPC read with Section 3 of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for brevity "SC&ST Act") by the police of Police Station Taoru, District Mewat. He was arrested and released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh.
2. In the wake of report of the BDPO and after following the due procedure, the Deputy Commissioner suspended the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, in exercise of power under Section 51(1) of the Act, by means of impugned order dated 13.04.2011(Annexure P-2).
3. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-2) of the Deputy Civil Writ Petition No.18779 of 2011 2 Commissioner, the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, by virtue of impugned order dated 12.07.2011(Annexure P-1).
4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) of the authorities below and preferred the present civil writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this relevant context.
6. What is not disputed here is that the petitioner had quarreled, abused and slapped complainant Sher Singh in the premises of Police Station Taoru and on reaching the village, set his house ablaze. Consequently, a criminal case was registered against him for the commission of indicated offences. A show-cause- notice under Section 51 of the Act was duly issued and the petitioner submitted his reply, which was not found satisfactory. Again, personal hearing was provided to the petitioner, but he did not come present on the fixed dates. The BDPO vide his office letter Memo No.7069 dated 29.03.2011 reported that a criminal case was registered against the Sarpanch under the provisions of SC&ST Act and was absconded for the last two months, due to which, the development works in the village had come to a halt. Thereafter, vide letter Memo No.53 dated 06.04.2011, a final notice was sent to the house of Sarpanch and his family members informed that he(Sarpanch) is lodged in Bhondsi Jail. After perusing the record, the Deputy Commissioner suspended him, by way of impugned order dated 13.04.2011 (Annexure P-2).
7. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in a criminal case, so, the Deputy Commissioner committed a legal mistake, in suspending him from the post Civil Writ Petition No.18779 of 2011 3 of Sarpanch, sans merit.
8. As is clear that Section 51 of the Act postulates that the Director or the Deputy Commissioner concerned may, suspend any Sarpanch or Panch, as the case may be, 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's 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.
9. That means, a Sarpanch can be suspended merely on the basis of registration and investigation of a criminal case. Whether he was innocent or has been falsely implicated would be the moot points to be decided during the trial in the criminal case and regular enquiry. If during the course of investigation or regular enquiry, the petitioner is found innocent, at any stage, then he would be at liberty to move an application for his reinstatement on the part of Sarpanch. Be that as it may, but at this stage, it cannot possibly be saith that the petitioner was innocent and falsely implicated. Keeping the seriousness and grave allegations alleged against the petitioner that he has quarreled, abused, slapped and set the house of the complainant on fire, into focus, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly suspended him, through the medium of impugned order dated 13.04.2011 (Annexure P-2).
10. Not only that, the decision(Annexure P-2) of the Deputy Commissioner was upheld by the Appellate Authority, vide impugned order dated 12.07.2011(Annexure P-1), the operative part of which is as under:-
"I have heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record available on file. It is an admitted fact that a criminal case under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 436, 506 and 34 of the IPC, has been registered against the appellant. The appellant has been afforded adequate opportunity to explain his position before placing him under suspension by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant has been placed under Civil Writ Petition No.18779 of 2011 4 suspension under Section 51(1) of the Act in view of the said criminal case. Arguments relating to merits on the criminal case are not relevant for disposal of this appeal. As per clause (a) of Sub section (1) of Section 51 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, mere investigation of inquiry in respect of any criminal offence is enough to pass the impugned order provided charge made or proceeding taken against appellant involved moral turpitude or defect or character or likelihood of embarrassment of the appellant in the discharge of his duties as Sarpanch. The charge leveled against the appellant is of very serious nature and the proceeding is likely to embarrass him in discharge of his duties. Thus the impugned order is on consonance with the provisions of section 51(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Hence finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed."
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference in this respect.
12. Meaning thereby, the authorities have recorded the cogent grounds in the impugned orders in this regard. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.
October 04, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE