State of Punjab & Ors. v. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J

The State of Punjab through its Secretary; the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats; and the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nabha, have filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 13.9.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 18324 of 2011, filed by two `Mahila Panches', namely Nirmala Devi and Amarjit Kaur (respondents No.1 and 2 herein), challenging the order of their suspension passed on 14.6.2011 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that they had not attended meetings of the Gram Panchayat during the last two months, was allowed.

Though there is a delay of 31 days in filing the appeal and the appellants have filed application (CM No. 5564-LPA of 2012) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellants LPA No. 2111 of 2012 ( O&M ) -2- on merits and gone through suspension order dated 14.6.2011 as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The present case is an example, which indicates that how some times, the elected representatives of the Gram Panchayats at grass-root level are being treated by the Panchayat Department Officers.

In this case, both the respondents were duly elected as Panches of Gram Panchayat, Village Lubana Teku, Block Nabha, District Patiala, during the general elections held in May, 2008. They were regularly attending the meetings of the Gram Panchayat. However, in the year 2011, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department (appellant No.2 herein), issued a show cause notice to them for their removal under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), on the ground that they had absented themselves in the meetings of the Gram Panchayat held on 17.1.2011 and

16.3.2011. On that issue, an enquiry was initiated. During the pendency of the said enquiry, vide order dated 14.6.2011 (Annexure P-1), appellant No.2, in exercise of his powers under Section 20 (4) of the Act, suspended both the women Panches.

The appeals filed by both the respondents against the aforesaid order were also dismissed by the Government vide order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P-2).

Both the respondents challenged the aforesaid orders by filing LPA No. 2111 of 2012 ( O&M ) -3- the writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, with costs of ` 10,000/-, to be equally shared and recovered personally from appellants No.1 and 2, while observing that both these appellants passed the order of suspension of two `Mahila Panches' without proper application of mind.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and going through the impugned order, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Section 20 of the Act empowers the Director to suspend and remove a Sarpanch or Panch. Clause (d) of Section 20 (1) of the Act empowers the Director to remove any Sarpanch or Panch, after such enquiry as he may deem fit, if he/she, without reasonable cause, absents himself/herself for more than two consecutive months from the meetings of the Gram Panchayat. Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act further provides that 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. In the present case, the allegation, on which the enquiry for removal was initiated against respondents No.1 and 2, was that they did not attend the meetings of the Gram Panchayat for more than two consecutive months without any reasonable cause. When notices in this regard were issued to both the respondents, they gave categoric replies. Respondent No.1 stated that she could not attend the meeting held on

17.1.2011, as her husband was seriously ill and was admitted in Hospital, LPA No. 2111 of 2012 ( O&M ) -4- who later on died on 24.9.2011. Respondent No.2 stated that from 15.1.2011 to 20.1.2011, she remain admitted in the Hospital at Nabha. A perusal of the orders passed by the Director and the Appellate Authority clearly indicates that both these authorities under the Act did not properly appreciate the explanations given by both the Mahila Panches. It appears that they proceeded on the assumption that the explanations given by the respondents were false and concocted. No finding was recorded by the authorities that absence of the respondents on a particulate date was without `reasonable cause'. In these facts, the learned Single Judge has set aside both the aforesaid orders, while observing as under :- “No doubt the power to suspend Panch or Sarpanch is provided under Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act but this has to be exercised strictly as per the provisions of the Section or in accordance with law.

The Sarpanch or a Panch can be suspended or removed on the ground that he had absented for more than two consecutive months from the meeting of Gram Panchayat but in addition the Officer exercising the powers has to see that the absence is without a reasonable cause. What could be a better cause and how it was not reasonable to say that the petitioner could not come present as was required to attend to her sick husband who was suffering from deadly disease like cancer. If this is not a reasonable cause perhaps no case in the eyes of a Director would be reasonable. It may need emphasis that mere absence can not lead to suspension or removal. Only such absence which is without reasonable cause can lead to suspension or removal. Legislation does not use any LPA No. 2111 of 2012 ( O&M ) -5- word superfluously. Each word used in the Section has to be assigned a meaning. When the legislation has provided that suspension has to follow when absence is without reasonable cause, the authority has to consider this aspect of law and then pass an order.

If a particular member happens to absent himself or herself in an odd meeting because of his or her old age or sickness, obviously he can not be faulted to be suspended or removed. The Director ought to realise that absence, which is with cause like in this case, can not be termed without reasonable cause as these were beyond the control of the petitioners. If the petitioners had any intention to remain absent with intention to interrupt work then they could not be expected to participate in 50 meetings. To me the exercise of power of the Director apparently is not bonafidely done. If the Director had applied his mind to the facts of this case, obviously he could not have been so harsh to petitioner No. 1 whose husband was suffering from cancer and ultimately breathed his last. Suspending such a Panch would not only show non application of mind but appear to be a result of some cruel consideration actuating with considerations other than merits.

If such a case did not deserve any sympathetic consideration which were legally also due to the petitioners then perhaps there may not be any other case where a reasonable cause for absence from meeting by a Panch can be shown. Attitude shown by the Director and upheld by the Secretary is nothing short of being inhuman besides being illegal reflecting non application of mind. It is an abuse of process to suppress the play of democracy at grass root level. The order passed by the Director, therefore, can not be sustained.”

During the course of hearing, it has not been disputed that LPA No. 2111 of 2012 ( O&M ) -6- before the aforesaid two meetings, both the respondents had attended more than 50 meetings of the Gram Panchayat on earlier occasions. They are not habitual absentees. There may be hundreds of circumstances, in which an elected representative may absent himself or herself in a meeting because of his or her old age or sickness or sickness of his or her family members or any other valid reason. Explanation in such cases given by them, in case any notice is issued to them, should normally be not questioned, until and unless they are habitual in not attending the meetings of the Gram Panchayat or intentionally not attending the meeting to paralyse the functioning of the Gram Panchayat. The elected representatives should not be placed under suspension or removed from the office in a casual manner. They are the elected representatives at grass-root level. Before suspending a Sarpanch or Panch, the authorities must properly apply their mind on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that appellants No.1 and 2 while dealing with the issue of suspension of the respondents have acted casually without application of mind and apparently not bonafidely, and thus allowed the writ petition with costs. In the present case, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order.

Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 17, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH ) JUDGE