PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H P

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.) The first fourteen paragraphs of the office order of January 19, 1989 are just a reproduction of the corresponding paragraphs of the show cause notice. By way of consideration of the explanation, we find the sentence, extracted above, in the impugned office order dated January 19, 1989, in paragraph 15 thereof. It is quite clear that the order dated January 19, 1989 does not disclose any application of mind on the part of the Deputy Commissioner when he purports to have considered the explanation of the petitioner. The order of suspension, to our mind, was passed mechanically without any consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner. Such an order cannot be upheld.