B S THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed against respondent No.5, who was holding the office of Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Jukhala by the petitioner and co-villagers on 23.3.2008 to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. A show-cause notice was issued to respondent No.5 by the Deputy Commissioner on 9.6.2008, to which the reply was filed by him on 23.6.2008. Respondent No. 5 was put under suspension on 24.7.2008. Inquiry was held by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sadar, District Bilsapur. Both the charges levelled against respondent No.5, according to the Inquiry Officer, were duly proved. The Director, Panchayati Raj upheld the order of suspension on 28.10.2008. Respondent No. 5 filed a revision before the Secretary (Panchayat). He remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner on 29.1.2009. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to respondent No.5 on 28.2.2009, to which he filed reply on 9.4.2009. Respondent No.5 was removed by the Deputy Commissioner on 30.4.2009. Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. He remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner on 15.7.2009. The Deputy Commissioner again found him guilty and re-affirmed order dated 30.4.2009 on 19.8.2009. Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. He remanded the matter back on 16.11.2009. The matter was re-inquired by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sadar, District Bilaspur. He again gave findings that the charges levelled against respondent No.5 were proved. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner re-affirmed the earlier orders dated 30.4.2009 on 28.4.2010. Thereafter, respondent No.5, as per the pleadings, approached this Court by filing CWP No. 3810/2010. It was disposed of on 4.10.2010. Thereafter, the Divisional Commissioner again passed order on 29.10.2010. He has directed respondent No.5 to be more vigilant in future. In other words, the proceedings against respondent No.5 were dropped. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner.

(2.) It will be apt at this stage to take note that respondent No.5 has been re-elected as Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Jukhala on 1.1.2011.

(3.) Mr. T.S. Chauhan has strenuously argued that order dated 29.10.2010 is against law. He has also argued that the charges levelled against respondent No.5 have been duly proved in two inquiry reports dated 29.1.2009 and 27.2.2010. He then argued that respondent No.5 and the Secretary, Gram Panchayat are remiss in discharge of their statutory duties and as far as respondent No.5 is concerned, he has incurred disqualification under section 146 of the Panchayati Raj Act and could not participate in the selection process for the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Jukhala. He further argued that the Deputy Commissioner has affirmed his order repeatedly, but the higher authorities without due application of mind and by misdirecting themselves on the question of law and facts have saved respondent No.5.