AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bali, J.—Petitioner, a Sarpanch of village Palri, Block Dadri, has been suspended vide orders dated July 2, 1998, which orders have been confirmed by the appellate authority vide its order dated August 18, 1998. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed.
It is pursuant to registration of a case Under Sections 332/353/186/147/149 IPC that the petitioner has been suspended as per the provisions contained in Section 51(l)(a) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The allegations against the petitioner, as culled out from FIR, Annexure P-9, reveal that the petitioner along with others on December 30, 1997, when the Head Master was teaching Class third and all other teachers were teaching other classes, at about 11 A.M. attacked the Head Master. The petitioner along with others first rang the school bell and when there was a chaos in the school, they all attacked the Head Master of the school. The Head Master was saved on account of intervention of his colleagues. While leaving the spot, petitioner and others threatened the Head Master that he would be killed.
Mr. Kundu, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are not such that might involve moral turpitude and, therefore, as per the language employed in Section 51(l)(a) of the Act petitioner could not be suspended. He further contends that vide Annexure P-7 the Government has issued instructions vide which the offences involving moral turpitude have been mentioned and inasmuch as the petitioner has not committed any offence that might fall in the list of the offences described by the Government vide Annexure P-7, he could not be suspended. We find no merit in either of the contention of the learned counsel, noted above. Section 51(l)(a) of the Act reads as follows :-
(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 Commissioners concerned the charge made or proceeding taken against him is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involve moral turpitude or defect of character".
Clause (a) of Section 51 authorises the Director or the Deputy Commissioner to suspend a Sarpanch when the Charge made or proceedings taken against him is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character. If, therefore, offence committed by a Sarpanch is such that may embarrass him in discharge of his duties or may reflect defect of his character, he can we be suspended. Insofar, as instructions, Annexure P-7 are concerned, the very head note of the same would manifest that the same are applicable when exconvicts have to be rehabilitated. The caption of instructions annexure P-7 reads as follows :-
"Rehabilitation of ex-convicts released from jails, question of making them eligible for appointment under Government.
It has clearly been mentioned in para 1 of the instructions that ex-convicts should be taken in Government service and the list of offences involving moral turpitude has then been mentioned. These instructions can not possibly apply with regard to suspension of a Sarpanch as envisaged u/s 51(1) (a) of the Act. There are vague allegations of mala fide against respondent No. 3 Surinder Singh M.P. stated to be son of present Chief Minister, Haryana. On this vague allegations, even prima facie opinion cannot be formed that the order of suspension has been actuated on account of mala fide Surinder Singh, Member Parliament.
No merit.
Dismissed in limine.