Ranjit Singh, J.@mdashThe petitioner was placed under suspension on 08.03.2011 by Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Mohali. The allegation made against the petitioner was that she had initiated eviction proceedings against Harbans Singh, Ajit Singh and Surta Singh on the ground that they are in unauthorised possession of panchayat land whereas actual fact is that this panchayat land was not in unauthorised possession of Harbans Singh and others. The facts on record would show that the eviction order has already been passed against Harbans Singh, Ajit Singh and Surta Singh. This Court, accordingly, noticed that this suspension of the petitioner, as ordered by the Director was not justified. While issuing notice of motion, the Court directed respondent No. 2 to file personal affidavit stating as to under what provision of law on administrative side he could upset the finding recorded by the Collector u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Respondent was asked to further clarify the remaining aspects in regard to placing the petitioner under suspension.
2. Respondent No. 2 has now filed his personal affidavit stating that there is no intention on his part to interfere with the order passed u/s 7 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 has disclosed the reasons in detail as to why order was passed. It is alleged that the petitioner had sought eviction of person, who was not in unauthorised occupation of panchayat land.
3. Be that as it may, now the petitioner has conceded this fact of wrong move and has filed application against the persons, who are stated to be actually in unauthorised possession of this land. Mere fact that the petitioner had filed petition against some wrong persons apparently may not appear justified for placing elected representative under suspension. In any case, it ought to have been first inquired if this action was with any motive or purpose, to take action against the petitioner if it was otherwise permissible on this ground. Placing the petitioner, who is elected representative under suspension merely on this ground may not sound justified. The petitioner has already moved proper application seeking eviction of actual unauthorised occupants. The eviction proceedings has been stayed by this Court, the petitioner has continued to act as Sarpanch.
4. The present petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No. 2 to reconsider the issue in the light of factual position as it exists today and to decide afresh if there is any cause or reason to place the petitioner under suspension on this ground or not. If the petitioner is still placed under suspension, the same shall be done by giving detailed reason and order shall not be put in effect for one month to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
