High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a statutory appeal against the suspension of a Sarpanch accused under Section 307 IPC where charges were already framed during the trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Kumar Vinod 2013.08.01 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.15175 of 2013
[ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15175 of 2013 Date of decision:31.07.2013
Jasbir Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Rajnish K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J .
The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Haripur Mandokhara, Block Babain, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
One Randhir Singh S/o Shiv Dayal made a complaint against the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, that she is an accused in case FIR No.108 dated 10.11.2010, registered under Sections 148, 149, 452, 380, 323, 427, 506 IPC at Police Station Babain and is not eligible to discharge her duties as Sarpanch of the village.
On the complaint, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and after receiving her reply, the Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated 02.06.2011, placed her under suspension after finding that during investigation of the aforesaid FIR, Section 307 IPC was also added.
The petitioner filed statutory appeal under Section 51(5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which has been dismissed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Development and
Kumar Vinod 2013.08.01 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh [ 2 ]
CWP No.15175 of 2013
Panchayats, Haryana, on 06.11.2012 holding that the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC involves moral turpitude and in view of the fact that the charge has already been framed by the Court, the order of suspension cannot be reversed.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case but has failed to deny the fact that the FIR is actually registered against the Sarpanch and the offence under Section 307 IPC is also there in the charge, which has been framed by the Court, and the trial is on.
In view thereof, I do not find any error in the impugned order and hence, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
July 31, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether suspension of a Sarpanch admittedly involved in an offence under Section 307 IPC with a framed charge can be set aside.
Whether the statutory appeal against suspension by the Principal Secretary to Government should have been allowed or dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jasbir Kaur
State of Haryana
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
