Shamsher Bhadur, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition of Inder Singh to challenge the order (Annexure A) passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 6th of October, 1966, under sub -section (2) of section 102 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act suspending him from the office of Sarpanch and debarring him from taking part in any act or proceedings of the Panchayat during the course of his suspension.
(2.) IN the impugned order it is stated that the petitioner since his election as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Bore Sayyedan in Thanesar Block had misappropriated several amounts and had refused to receive the registered notice issued to him requiring him to produce record and to explain the discrepancies according to the report of the postal authorities. It was also stated in the suspension order that the petitioner had not held any Sabha meeting and had auctioned saltpeter for one year for a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - without accounting for the amount in the books of the Panchayat. An enquiry into these matters had been entrusted to the Sub -Divisional Officer and it was during the course of the enquiry that the Deputy Commissioner thought it necessary to suspend the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. Sub section (1) of section 102 of the Act relates to the power of suspension and removing of panches and so far the Deputy Commissioner is concerned it is to this effect: The Deputy Commissioner may, during the course of an enquiry, suspend a Panch for any of the reasons for which he can be removed and debar him from taking part in any act or proceedings of the said body during that period and order him to hand over the records, money or any property of the said body to the person so authorised in this behalf. Sub -section (2) relates to the power of the Government which can remove a Panch after such enquiry. It is not controverted that an enquiry had been pending against the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order of suspension during the course of this enquiry. All that has been contended by Mr. Amol, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the enquiry should have been launched by the Deputy Commissioner himself as this power could not have been delegated to the Sub Divisional Officer. Support for this contention is sought from section 95 of the Act which deals with delegation of powers. The various sub -section of section 95 deal with the power of delegation of the Government, the Director, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the District Judge, the Collector and the Deputy Commissioner. By a proviso which was added in 1964 it has been enacted that "the power specified in section 102 shall not be delegated by the Deputy Commissioner." Mr. Amol submits that the power to suspend under subsection (1) of section 102 includes the power to make an enquiry. I cannot accede to this submission. What is inhibited by the proviso to section 95 is that the power of the Deputy Commissioner to suspend cannot be delegated. The power of enquiry cannot be embraced in the power of suspension. In a Division Bench authority of this Court of Mehar Singh J (as the learned Chief Justice then was) and Pandit J. in Piyare Lal v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur I.L.R. (1966) 2 Punj. 20, it was held that "the Deputy Commissioner has the power to suspend a Sarpanch or a panch when enquiry against him is pending before another officer." According to the Division Bench, "it is not necessary that the enquiry must be held by the Deputy Commissioner himself as there is nothing in sub -section (1) of section 102 which debars the Deputy Commissioner to have an enquiry held by another officer or authority."
(3.) ALTHOUGH two other points have been raised these have not been pressed before me by Mr. Amol, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.;