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.

Judgment :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 8.12.2025 and 10.12.2025 annexed as Annexure P-25 and P-28, show- cause notices/communications and any other act of the respondents in pursuance thereof, as may be found illegal, arbitrary or volatile of law.

(b) That issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to refrain from taking any further action in pursuance of the impugned orders and to restore the
status quo and as on the date immediately prior to the said actions, pending final disposal of this petition

(c) To Direct the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to consider her objections in accordance with law, with due compliance of all due process requirements.

(d) To direct the respondents to disclose all records, documents and information relied upon for any action taken against the petitioner and to place them before this Court.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sanwal, Block Development Tissa, District Chamba, H.P., has been placed under suspension by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, vide Annexure P-25, dated 08.12.2025. The reason mentioned in the order for placing the petitioner under suspension is lodging of an FIR against him, in lieu whereof, the petitioner was stated to have remained in judicial custody for 48 days.

3. Record demonstrates that the appeal was filed by the petitioner against the suspension order and the application filed alongwith the appeal for stay of operation of the suspension order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 10.12.2025 and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner yesterday argued that the order of suspension is per se bad for the reason that in terms of the provisions of Section 145(2-A) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, no officer bearer shall be placed under suspension under sub-section (1) or (2) unless he has been given an opportunity of being heard. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the present case, the impugned order of suspension was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the order of suspension was void ab initio. Learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that this important aspect of the matter was ignored by the learned Appellate Authority and therefore, the order, in terms whereof, the prayer for stay of suspension order has been rejected, deserves to be set aside.

5. In light of the submissions, which were made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner yesterday, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to have specific instructions as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before issuance of the suspension order or not. In response thereto, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the instructions received from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, dated 18.12.2025, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

“Kindly refer to the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the above-titled writ petition, whereby the Learned Additional Advocate General has been directed to obtain specific instructions as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order.

That it is res