Appeals against suspension of elected Gram Panchayat Pradhans must be decided expeditiously, particularly near term end; improper adjournments by unauthorized persons justify staying suspension pending proper adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. In the light of the prayer made in this petition with the consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of at this stage.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:-

(i) “That the impugned orders dated 19.07.2025 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be permitted to continue as Pradhan Gram Panchayat Dand till the enquiry proceedings are pending before respondent No.4.

(ii) That respondent No.2 may very kindly be directed to decide the appeal pending before him filed under Section 148 of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 titled as Kanto Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors. in time bound manner.”

4. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who is serving as Pradhan Gram Panchayat Dand, Development Block Salooni, District Chamba, H.P., was placed under suspension by the District Panchayat Officer vide order dated 19.07.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have been filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Chamba i.e., the Appellate Authority. In terms of Annexure P-8, the arguments in the case were heard on 21.08.2025 and the case was ordered to be listed for final decision on 04.09.2025. This order is being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference.

“Arguments were heard in detail as presented by the Adv. Madan Rawat for the appellant and by the official from the office of the DPO Panchayat the respondents in the case.

Accordingly, the case to come up for final decision on 04.09.2025.”

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter on 04.09.2025, i.e., the date fixed for the pronouncement of the order, rather than, announcing the judgment, for want of the Deputy Commissioner in the seat as he had to proceed to Bharmaur for the supervision of the relief and evacuation operations on account of the disaster situation in Bharmaur sub- division, District Chamba, H.P., the following order has been passed:-

“The case was fixed for hearing today. However, due to disaster situation in Bharmour sub-division closed by heavy rain, landslides and disruption during Manimahes Yatra, the Presiding Officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner had to proceed to Bharmour for supervision of relief and evacuation operations. Before leaving Ld. Presiding Officer conveyed that next date of hearing be fixed for 4.12.2025.”

Reader to Deputy Commissioner”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Deputy Commissioner was not available on 04.09.2025 for the reasons mentioned in the application, then, the case should have been simply listed on some other date, rather than posting it after three months and that too by mentioning therein that the case was listed on 04.09.2025 for hearing. He submits that the petitioner being aggrieved by her suspension order cannot brook delay in the decision of her appeal, because these tactics of not deciding the case expeditiously defeat the very purpose of filing the appeal, because the term of the petitioner otherwise is going to end in the month of December, 2025. Accordingly, he prays that appropriate order be passed in this petition so that the petitioner does not suffer for the acts of omission of the respondents.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is no doubt that the trend that recently has been seen by this Court of suspending the duly elected Pr