Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 780 (HP)

Usha Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-22

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “Issue a writ of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the Annexure P-7 dated 14.12.2023 passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Learned Divisional Commissioner. Further quash the Annexure P-3 dated 08.11.2023 having been issued without application of mind.” 2. The controversy involved in this writ petition is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 08.11.2023 (Annexure P-3), in terms whereof, she was placed under suspension by the Authority by invoking the provisions of Section 145(1)(c) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as well as order dated 14.12.2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner in Appeal No.192 of 2023, titled Usha Devi versus Deputy Commissioner Sirmour, in terms whereof, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against her suspension was rejected by the Appellate Authority. 3. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Koti Uttrou, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour in the year 2021. She was issued a show cause notice on 13.10.2023 (Annexure P-1), seeking a response from her on the alleged illegalities and irregularities mentioned therein, on the basis of a complaint preferred against her by one Sh. Rattan Singh, S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice denying the allegations made therein. This was followed by issuance of an office order dated 08.11.2023, in terms whereof, the petitioner was placed under suspension. It was mentioned in the order that in terms of a complaint received against the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, in which, it was found that there was merit in the allegations. Thereafter, the petitioner was served a show cause notice, reply filed whereto was found unsatisfactory and as the matter required a regular inquiry, the petitioner was ordered to be placed under suspension. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal. Vide order dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-7) learned Divisional Commissioner, i.e. the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by returning the findings that in terms of the record, the procedure was duly followed before the suspension of the Pradhan. It was further mentioned in the order that after the receipt of the complaint against the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was conducted. Vide order dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-7) learned Divisional Commissioner, i.e. the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by returning the findings that in terms of the record, the procedure was duly followed before the suspension of the Pradhan. It was further mentioned in the order that after the receipt of the complaint against the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was conducted. This was followed by issuance of a detailed show cause notice, to which, the petitioner replied and after perusal of the show cause notice, the Deputy Commissioner ordered the suspension of petitioner on08.11.2023. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order of suspension of petitioner is prima facie bad for the reason that the same is nothing but an act of colourable exercise of powers. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the political allegiance of the petitioner is the main reason for her being harassed and not being permitted to do the job, for which, she has been elected by the representatives of the area. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this is nothing but an act of vengeances on the part of the respondents to throttle democracy, more so, in the light of the fact that neither the petitioner has committed any illegalities or irregularities as alleged nor the funds like MGNREGA etc., were under her control, as is also evident from the statutory provisions of the MGNREGA Act, 2005. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that without prejudice to the said contentions of the petitioner, in light of the provisions of Section 145(3), as the post suspension procedure including holding and completion of the inquiry has to be completed within six months and in case inquiry and action is not completed within the stipulated period, the suspension period shall be deemed to have been revoked, because, in the present case, needful in terms of Sub-section 3 has not been done till date, therefore also, the order of suspension is now bad in law, as, it is deemed to have been revoked, though no formal order to this effect has been passed by the Authority till date. Accordingly, he has prayed that the writ petition be allowed, as prayed for. 5. Accordingly, he has prayed that the writ petition be allowed, as prayed for. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that there is no infirmity in the order of suspension, because, the same was issued by following the procedure, as is envisaged in Section 145 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. He took the Court through the order of suspension as well as the Appellate order and submitted that it is evident from the order passed by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner was associated in the preliminary inquiry also, which was conducted by the Committee upon receipt of a complaint against her. He further submitted that there is no infirmity either in the order of suspension dated 08.11.2023 or the order of the dismissal of appeal. As far as the provisions of Section 146(3) of the Act are concerned, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that as there was a stay operating against the order in issue as was granted by this Court, therefore, Section 146(3) was not attracted. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the order impugned as well as the pleadings on record. 7. As far as the order of suspension dated 08.11.2023 that has been passed against the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that as the same was issued after following the mandate of Section 145 of the Act, therefore, this Court does not finds any infirmity therein. However, it should not be taken as if this Court has made any observation with regard to the correctness of the allegations made against the petitioner are concerned. Similarly, as far as the Appellate order is concerned, this Court does not finds any infirmity therein also, because, as the order of suspension was followed by following the codal formalities, the finding to this effect returned by the learned Appellate Authority calls for interference. 8. However, there is merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that now the order of suspension has lost its efficacy and as the inquiry and action post order of suspension have not been completed within six months as from the date of issuance of suspension, i.e. 08.11.2023, the order of suspension is deemed to have been revoked. Section 145(3) of the Act provides as under:- “The order of suspension under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be reported, in the case of office bearers of Zila Parishad, to the Divisional Commissioner concerned, and in the case of office bearers of Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayat, to the Deputy Commissioner concerned, within a period of ten days from the date of suspension, who shall, thereafter within ten days from the date of receipt of such report, order enquiry under section 146 and shall complete enquiry and action within six months and in case enquiry and action is not completed within stipulated period, the suspension order shall be deemed to have been revoked and formal order shall be issued accordingly.” 9. It is relevant to take note of communication dated 18.03.2025, which was made available for the perusal of the Court, received from the Inquiry Officer by the petitioner, in terms whereof, the petitioner was again directed to join the inquiry, which demonstrates that even as on 18.03.2025, i.e. much after the lapse of six months as from the date of the issuance of the order of suspension, the inquiry was continued. This communication is ordered to be taken on record. 10. Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that as the inquiry and action has not been completed against the petitioner within a period of six months as from 08.11.2023, in terms of the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, therefore, suspension order (Annexure P-3), is deemed to have been revoked, six months post the issuance of said order and the petitioner herein obviously is at liberty to perform her duties as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned. Respondent-Authority is directed to issue a formal order to this effect within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, the petitioner shall rejoin the office of Pradhan without waiting for the issuance of a formal order. Miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of.