Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, April 1
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a panch or sarpanch can be suspended for misconduct committed during the current tenure only and not for an earlier term. The assertion by Justice Sudhir Mittal came in a case where the functioning of a sarpanch was placed under suspension on the basis of a complaint that he had embezzled funds during his earlier tenure in 2011.
The state’s stand in the matter was that the order of suspension could “always be passed”. The impugned orders, as such, did not suffer from any infirmity. Taking up the matter, Justice Mittal observed the petitioner remained sarpanch from 2008 to 2013.
He was again elected in 2019. Soon thereafter, the complaint alleging embezzlement during the earlier tenure was made, following which he was suspended. The petition against the suspension order was filed in the High Court after his earlier appeal in the matter failed.
Justice Mittal also took note of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that suspension was governed by Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act. A panch or a sarpanch could be suspended under the provision for misconduct committed during the current tenure and not for any misconduct allegedly conducted during an earlier term. As such, the order of suspension was illegal.
Justice Mittal also noted the counsel’s submission that Section 216 (4) of the Act imposed a bar on any action after expiry of four years from the occurrence of loss and after expiry of two years from ceasing to be a member, whichever was later. The petitioner ceased to be a member on conclusion of his tenure in 2013. The bar, as such, came into effect after 2015, while the complaint in this case was made in 2019. It, as such, could not have been entertained.
“The argument raised on behalf of the state does not answer the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that suspension can only be on account of misconduct during the current term. Thus, the argument based upon Section 20 of the Act possesses merit. Even if bar under Section 216(4) of the Act is not attracted, the order of suspension is bad in law as it is based upon an alleged misconduct committed in 2011 and not during the current term,” Justice Mittal asserted. Allowing the writ petition, Justice Mittal also quashed the orders impugned in the petition.
Funds ’embezzled’ during 2011 tenure
- The assertion came in a case where functioning of a sarpanch was placed under suspension on the basis of a complaint that he had embezzled funds during his tenure in 2011
- The state’s stand in the matter was that the order of suspension could “always be passed”
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Can’t suspend sarpanch for misconduct during earlier term
{$excerpt:n}
