DUNI CHAND DHIMAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Jabli. This is his third turm as Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.9.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan (respondent No.2) whereby he has ordered the suspension of the petitioner as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Jabli. Earlier also, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 17th February, 2006. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 244 of 2006. This petition was allowed on 17.5.2006 and the suspension order passed against the petitioner was quashed and set aside with all consequences.

(2.) SURPRISINGLY , though the order passed by respondent No. 2 was quashed by this court on 17.5.2006 till 9.6.2006, the respondent No. 2 did not take any steps to reinstate the petitioner. This was despite the fact that the petitioner had moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner alongwith certified copy of the judgment on 26.5.2006 itself. This order had been passed in the presence of learned Advocate General and the Deputy Commissioner was supposed to comply with the order forthwith. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 9.6.2006 which reads as follows:-

(3.) THEREAFTER the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, issued a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner on 3rd August, 2006. The petitioner was directed to file his reply within a period of 15 days. Admittedly, the petitioner filed the reply. According to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 on the affidavit of respondent No. 2, the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 8.8.2006. It is also admitted that the reply to the show cause notice was filed by the petitioner in the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 14.8.2006. The respondents have, however, taken a very untenable and ludicrous stand that the petitioner did not present the reply in person to the Deputy Commissioner. There is no law which requires that the reply should have been filed personally with the Deputy Commissioner. The reply was filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner within the prescribed period and despite this reply, admittedly having been filed on 14.8.2006, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order of suspension on 6.9.2006 in which it is stated that no reply has been filed. The stand taken that the reply was filed in the office and was dealt in a routine manner and could not be placed in the man file with the Deputy Commissioner is an unreasonable and ridiculous stand. Even if it is accepted to be correct, then also why should the petitioner suffer for the total negligence and lethargy in the functioning of the office of respondent No. 2. If the respondent No. 2 cannot manage the affairs of his office in a proper manner, he cannot transfer the blame to the petitioner. It is indeed surprising that in a matter in which previously also the court had set aside the order of respondent No.2, the said respondent approached the whole matter in a very casual manner. We are constrained to observe that the manner in which the respondent No. 2 has acted, is not at all in consonance with the style of functioning expected from officers holding such high posts.