PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the case was taken up today, Shri Indar Singh, Advocate General, stated that by an order dated March 15, 1989, the Director, Panchayati Raj Department, has appointed the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Hamirpur, as enquiry officer. Also, that the enquiry officer is on leave till March 31, 1989. The order by which the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur and enquiry directed into the allegations mentioned by him, is dated January 19, 1989. So far, admittedly, no progress has been made in the enquiry.

(2.) THE various irregularities alleged to have been found in the functioning of the petitioner as a Pradhan, were mentioned by the Deputy Commissioner in his office order dated September 16, 1988 (Annexure PA to the writ petition). The infirmities, mentioned in it, are 14 in number. A reply (Annexure PB) was given by the petitioner by way of explanation. The Deputy Commissioner then passed the impugned office order dated January 19, 1989. In paragraph 15 of this office order, he has mentioned that the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice had been received and that "from the perusal of the reply, it appears that the President has attempted to exonerate himself from the allegations by concealing the facts and reality and the reply was found unsatisfactory".

(3.) SECTION 54(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, undoubtedly, permits the State Government or the Deputy Commissioner to place a Pradhan under suspension during the course of an enquiry. This, however, is to be done "for any reason to be recorded in writing". An order placing a Panch (which would include a Pradhan under Section 3(s) of the Act) should, therefore, contain 'reasons' as known to law and, to borrow the words of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M. L. Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 ;