The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 145 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, regarding the suspension of office bearers of Panchayats and the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 148 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHARMA, J.

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. In order to adjudicate upon the legal issues involved in these petitions, we have taken the facts in extenso of CWP No. 357/2010.

3. Petitioner was elected Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Mawa Sindhian. A complaint was lodged against him on 4.9.2009. Block Development Officer was directed to look into the matter. He looked into the matter and submitted report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 21.10.2009. Sub Divisional Magistrate furnished report to the Deputy Commissioner on 27.10.2009. Deputy Commissioner directed the District Panchayat Officer on 20.11.2009 to take action against the petitioner. In these circumstances, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7.12.2009. Petitioner filed reply to the same on 21.12.2009. Thereafter vide office order dated 18.1.2010, petitioner was placed under suspension.

4. Mr. Ajay Sharma has vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 18.1.2010 is without jurisdiction, thus, liable to be set aside. According to him, petitioner could not be proceeded against under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity sake) and Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997. His precise case is that as far as the execution of the Watershed Project is concerned, the same is to be done through the agency of DRDA/Zila Parishad/Gram Sabha and according to him; Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat is responsible for maintaining accounts etc. He also contended that the funds made available to the Panchayat for the Watershed Project cannot be termed as Panchayat Funds. He lastly contended that the work, in question, was got executed through the agency of Self-Help Group and one Smt. Raj Kumari has only worked and the money was also paid to her and not to Kaushalaya Devi.

5. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of filing the appeal against the impugned order dated 18.1.2010 under section 148 of the Act. He also contended that in view of section 99 of the Act, the funds made available for executing the Watershed Project are required to be treated as Panchayat Funds. He lastly contended that petitioner being the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was responsible for spending the funds made available and not the Secretary.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record carefully.

7. It will be apt at this stage to quote section 145 of the Act in order to effectively adjudicate this petition. Section 145 of the Act reads thus:

"145. Suspension of office bearers of Panchayats.- (1) The prescribed authority may suspend from office any office bearer-

(a) against whom charges have been framed in any criminal proceedings under chapter V-A, VI, IX-A, X, XII, section 302, 303, 304-B, 305, 306, 312 to 318, 336-A, 366-B, 373 to 377 of Chapter XVI, section 395 to 398, 408, 409, 458 to 460 of Chapter XVII and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or under the narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 or under section 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or sub-section (1) of section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 or under any law for the time being in force for the presentation of adulteration of food stuff and drugs, supersession of immoral traffic in women and children and protection of civil rights ;or

(b) who has been served with a notice along with a charge sheet to show cause under this Act, for his removal from the office.

(c) where on a complaint made against him the preliminary enquiry prima-facie discloses the misappropriation, misutilization or embezzlement of Panchayat funds or he has been found guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties:

Provided that any office bearer, if placed under