IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Asha Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others - Respondents
CWP No.7668 of 2024
Decided on : 05-05-2025
(A) Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 145 - Inquiry against Pradhan - Petitioner challenged the legality of the order directing a fresh inquiry while an existing inquiry was ongoing - The Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a fresh inquiry without justifiable reasons. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
(B) Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority - The Appellate Authority must limit its review to the legality of the order under challenge and cannot transgress its boundaries by ordering additional inquiries. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, was suspended and faced an inquiry initiated in January 2024. The Divisional Commissioner ordered a fresh inquiry while the original inquiry was ongoing, which the petitioner contested. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The order for a fresh inquiry was set aside, and the original inquiry was directed to be completed within six weeks. (Paras 8)
Issues: Whether the Appellate Authority had the jurisdiction to order a fresh inquiry when an existing inquiry was already in progress. (Paras 6, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Appellate Authority overstepped its jurisdiction by ordering a fresh inquiry without justifiable reasons, emphasizing the need to adhere to the scope of the appeal. (Paras 6, 8)
Result: Petition allowed; order dated 12.04.2024 set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“i) Issue a writ of certioirari to quash the orders dated 12- 04-2024 (Annexure P-1), 24-7-2024 (Annexure P-2 & Annexure P-3) and 29-07-2024 (Annexure P-4).
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.2 and 4 to conclude the regular statutory inquiry (under Section 145 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act) within time bound manner initiated in pursuance to order dated 31-01-2024 and submit the inquiry report before this Hon’ble Court.”
2. When this case was listed on 16.09.2024, the following order was passed:-
“ CWP No.7668/2024 & CMP No.13044/2024 Reply by the appearing respondents be filed within four weeks.
Issue notice to respondents No.7 and 8, returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within a week.
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 6 and considered the case file as also the instructions placed on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the purpose of considering the interim relief prayed for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Jarwra Juneli, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.
2(i) A show-cause notice was issued to her on 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-15), levelling certain allegations against her. Petitioner filed her detailed reply to the show- cause notice vide Annexure P-16. 2(ii) At this stage, petitioner moved a Civil Writ Petition No. 8955 of 2023, seeking quashing of the inquiry report as well as consequent show-cause notice dated 30.09.2023. The writ petition was decided on 21.11.2023 (Annexure P17). The writ petition was held to be premature. The petitioner was given liberty to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of her grievances in accordance with law under Section 148 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 143 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997. Paras- 2 and 3 of the aforesaid order read as under:-
“2. The petition, at the very face of it, is premature as when an enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner, he should face the same, and in case, he is aggrieved by the final outcome thereof, then, he can have recourse to such legal remedies as are provided under the provisions of the H.P.Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
3. As far as the allegation of biasness made in the petition is concerned, the petitioner can always bring this fact into the notice of the superior authorities, and in case, no action is taken thereupon, then the petitioner can have recourse to all such legal remedies as may be available to himin law as per Section 148 of the 1994 Act read with Rule 143 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997.”
2(iii) Petitioner preferred Revenue Appeal No. 197 of 2023 before the Divisional Commissioner Shimla, against the inquiry and the consequent show- cause notice dated 30.09.2023. Vide order dated 30.11.2023, the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on date (Annexure P-18).
2(iv) The respondents thereafter issued order on 06.12.2023 (Annexure P-19), placing the petitioner under suspension.
2 (v) Petitioner preferred Revenue Appeal No. 215 of 2023, assailing her suspension order before the Divisional Commissioner Shimla. Alongwith the appeal, petitioner also moved an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC in short) for staying her suspension order dated 06.12.2023. The Divisional Commissioner, Shimla dismissed the application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC on 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-20).
2(vi) Aggrieved against the dismissal of her application for stay of suspension order, petitioner preferred CMPMO No. 709 of 2023 before this Court, which was disposed of on 29.02.2024 (Annexure P- 21). The impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 14.12.2023 was set-aside. The Divisional Commissioner Shimla was directed to make ende
The Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a fresh inquiry while an existing inquiry was ongoing, violating the scope of its review.
Suspension of elected office bearer without opportunity of hearing violates mandatory statutory provision, rendering order void ab initio, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Suspension of an elected official is deemed revoked if the inquiry is not completed within six months as mandated by law.
A party must exhaust statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, and claims of natural justice violations must be substantiated.
Administrative bodies must provide clear justifications for suspension orders and act expediently in processing appeals to ensure fairness.
The court affirmed that suspension of an elected representative can occur based on a preliminary enquiry report without prior hearing, provided the charges are grave enough to warrant such action.
Disciplinary Authority cannot order de-novo inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules upon dissatisfaction with Inquiry Officer's report; must proceed per Rule 15 by providing disagreement reasons or directing f....
The court affirmed that the District Magistrate has the authority to cease a Pradhan's powers pending inquiry, and that the preliminary inquiry process does not necessitate the Pradhan's involvement.
The disciplinary authority must independently decide on inquiry reports without external influence, as mandated by the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.