Sewa Singh, Sarpanch vs Secretary to Government and Others

S.P. Kurdukar, C.J. and Swatantar Kumar, J.—On the application of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the name of the sixth respondent is deleted. Consequently, the allegations made against respondent No. 6 stand deleted. Respondents No. 1 to 5 are represented by Mr. Saron, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Respondents No. 1 to 5 have also filed written statement.

Admitted, Pleadings of the parties are complete. By consent, writ petition placed on board and called out for hearing.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Sarpanch challenging the legality and correctness of the charge-sheet Annexure P-3 and order of suspension Annexure P-4. Consequent upon the issuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner also came to be suspended vide order dated August 17, 1994, Annexure P-4. It is averred in the writ petition that the charge-sheet is as vague as it could be. It does not contain necessary details of the charges and consequently, it is not possible for the petitioner to file his reply. The charge-sheet is vague and it be set aside. Consequently, it is averred that if the charge-sheet fails then the order of suspension must also fail. We have perused the charge-sheet which is Annexure P-4 (page 15) and to our mind, it is as vague as it could be. No details are furnished along with the charge-sheet as regards the amounts which were alleged to have been kept by the petitioner in his hand from February 1993 to January 1994. The order of suspension based on such a vague charge-sheet cannot be sustained. Mr. Saron, the learned D.A.G. Punjab, appearing for the respondents, drew our attention to paragraph 5 of the written statement and Annexure R-l. It is true that Annexure R-l gives certain details about the amounts which were kept in hand by the petitioner, but all these details were not furnished to the petitioner at the lime when the charge-sheet was served. It is not the case of the respondents that these details were furnished to the petitioner at the time of the service of the charge-sheet. To our mind, it appears to be a latter development. We are, therefore, satisfied that the charge-sheet is unsustainable due to vagueness for want of particulars. Consequently, the order of suspension also cannot be sustained.

Resultantly, the charge-sheet, Annexure P-3 as well as the suspension order, Annexure P-4 are quashed and set aside. It is expressly made clear that it would be open to the respondents, if they so desire, to issue a fresh charge-sheet in accordance with law. Writ petition is allowed

No order as to costs.