BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel for the respondents waives notice. Taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

(2.) THE petitioner has sought two substantive reliefs. The first is to set-aside the order of suspension dated 6.12.2012 passed against him and the second is also dated 6.12.2012, whereby the Competent Authority has decided to initiate inquiry against the petitioner for his acts of commission and omission.

(3.) THE respondents have filed reply-affidavit. We find that a curious stand has been taken in the reply-affidavit. In that, the petitioner was shown complaint along with documents against him during the preliminary inquiry. Further, the petitioner was aware about the contents of the said documents. In other words, the fact that the copy of the complaint as well as the inquiry report, referred to above, was not furnished to the petitioner along with the show cause notice is indisputable. In that case, it would necessarily follow that process of consideration of response of the petitioner and including the show cause notice itself is vitiated. Section 145(2)(A) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 postulates that no office bearer shall be placed under suspension unless he has been given an opportunity of being heard. That opportunity would have been meaningful only if the petitioner was to be furnished with copy of the complaint and the inquiry report, on which, reliance has been placed by the department and being the fulcrum of the proceedings initiated by the department. As a result, we are inclined to set aside the order of suspension while making it clear that this order would not come in the way of the department to consider the reply of the petitioner already filed in response to the show cause notice and giving him liberty to file further reply after copy of the complaint and the inquiry report is furnished to him. After considering all those documents and including the further reply to be filed by the petitioner, the department is free to take appropriate decision, as may be advised, in accordance with law to issue fresh order of suspension.