RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) THE Director, in this case, apparently has acted beyond his jurisdiction to suspend the Sarpanch, who is the petitioner before this Court and has approached through the present petition to challenge his suspension. It is sad to notice that despite opportunity to the Director to reconsider the issue in the light of legal provision as contained in Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, the Director has remained adamant even to see reasons. The suspension order, apparently and prima facie, was found to have been passed without application of mind. Still, the Director has refused to mend himself or correct the wrong done to the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts noticed in brief are noticed hereinafter:- That in election of the Gram Panchayat village Paddi Khutti (Paddi Khushi), 5 members of the Panchayat were elected. One of which was subsequently elected as Sarpanch. The petitioner was elected as Panch. On the report of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, DDR No. 16 dated 28.05.2010 and FIR No. 32 dated 30.03.2011 under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and under Section 427 IPC was registered against the petitioner. On the basis of inquiry report given by the office of respondent No. 2, the Director issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 31.05.2011. He was required to file reply within 10 days. The petitioner filed detailed reply refuting the allegations and terming them to be totally wrong and false. The Director, thereafter, passed an order on 12.07.2011 suspending the petitioner from the post of Panch on the allegation that DDR and FIR referred to above had been registered against him. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 1 against this suspension order which was also dismissed. As per the petitioner, the appeal was dismissed without considering the documentary evidence on record. The petitioner pleads that the order is totally illegal. The petitioner thereafter has filed this present petition to impugn the order passed by the Director as well as the Secretary dismissing his appeal.
(3.) THE reply has been filed on behalf of Block Development and Panchayat Officer (respondent No. 4). In the Preliminary submissions made, it is stated that the petitioner is in the habit of taking law into his hands and the person is of offensive nature. Reference is made to the FIR registered against him under Section 452 IPC at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. This, however, was amicably settled, as is stated, in the reply itself. It is then alleged that the petitioner demolished wall of Dharmshala. He later feeling sorry, got constructed the wall after making payment from his own pocket. In this regard, copy of the report, is annexed with the reply. As per the reply, these facts are referred to urge that the petitioner is of offensive nature and undisciplined attitude for which his dismissal is warranted from the post.;