Recovery of funds based on allegations is premature and impermissible when the underlying inquiry is pending and the suspension order resulting from said inquiry has been stayed by a competent authority.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

In view of the grievance raised in the writ petition, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the order being passed hereinafter, reply of this writ petition is not required to be called for from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage.

2. The case

2(i). Petitioner is duly elected Pradhan of .Gram Panchayat Thaneikothi, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba. A complaint was lodged against him with respect to his working as Pradhan of the concerneod gram panchayat, which led to an inquiry conducted into the complaint.

2(ii). Inquiry report (Annexure P-1) was furnished by the inquiry committee. Baused upon the inquiry report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) by respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner, District Chamba. Petitioner furnished his reply to the show cause notice on 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.3-District Panchayat Officer, Chamba vide order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), suspended the petitioner with immediate effect.

2(iii). Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred appeal invoking Section 148 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 143(1)(e) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997 before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. The authority though admitted the appeal, but did not stay the suspension order of the petitioner. This led the petitioner to institute CWP No.15109 of 2025. The writ petition was disposed of on 18.09.2025 with direction to the Divisional Commissioner to decide petitioner’s appeal expedit.iously. Till the decision of the appeal, petitioner’s suspension order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) was stayed .

2(iv). Pursuant to the directionos issued in CWP No.15109 of 2025, the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala decided petitioner’s appeal on 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-8). The appeual was allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba on 09.09.2025 was set aside. The case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba for deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner alongwith his stay application with a reasoned & speaking order and till such time, operation of the suspension order dated 22.08.2025 was also stayed.

2(v). Petitioner’s grievance is to the office letter issued by respondent No.5-the Block Development Officer, Development Block Tissa, District Chamba on 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-9). In terms of the said office letter, the concerned Block Development Officer has directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,73,292/-, failing which the amount has been ordered to be recovered from him in accordance with law.

3. There is force in the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that when i.nquiry into the subject matter is pending deliberations before the competent authority, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, when petitioner’s suspension obased upon the said inquiry proceedings has already been stayed and a final call into the inquiry proceedings is yet to be taken by the competent authority, reuspondent No.5 could not have ordered recovery against the petitioner on account of allegations, which are yet to be adjudicated upon by the competent authority. The impugned decision as conveyed in office letter dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-9)