Sarv Dayal vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

V.K. Mehrotra, J.—Petitioner, Sarv Dayal, was elected "Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Nishani Development Block, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu. He came to this Court for redress through the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when he was placed under suspension u/s 54(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 (for short "the Act") by an order dated April 26, 1988. A copy of this order is Annexure P-5 to the writ petition. The order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu.

The order says that in respect of some alleged offences found to have been committed by the Petitioner, F.I.R. Nos. 31 and 51 of 1986 had been made against the Petitioner on November 26, 1986 and December 31, 1986, at the police station. Further, that inquiry had been made into these reports by the police. The inquiry so made revealed that the Petitioner was, prima facie, guilty of having made some interpolations in the allotment of timber. A show-cause notice was given to the Petitioner but the reply to the notice which the Petitioner had furnished was not found to be satisfactory in view of the inquiry report of the police. Consequently, the Petitioner was being suspended with immediate effect from the office of the Pradhan.

Section 54(1) of the Act enables the Deputy Commissioner to place a Pradhan under suspension during an inquiry for any reason to be recorded in writing. We had an occasion to deal with this provision in Civil Writ Petition No. 84 of 1989, Parkash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. We have explained the scope of the provision by saying that an order of suspension must contain ''reasons'' as known to law. Our decision lays down that the order should disclose, application of mind on the part of the authority, directing the suspension of a Pradhan to the facts of the case on the basis whereof the conclusion of placing the Pradhan under suspension is arrived at.

As in the case of Parkash Chand, so also in the present case, all that has been said in the impugned order, by way of recording reasons, is that the explanation offered by the Pradhan was not found satisfactory. This is nothing more than recording of the conclusion by the Deputy Commissioner.

In addition to what we have already said in our judgment in Parkash Chand''s case, we would like to say that when an explanation is called for from the Pradhan, and is offered by him, the order of suspension should disclose, ex-facie, that the authority directing the suspension of the Pradhan had applied its mind to the circumstances pointed out by the Pradhan against an order of proposed suspension. There need not be an elaborate discussion in the order of the various points raised by the Pradhan, who is given notice to show cause why he should not be placed under suspension. However, some discussion should be there about the defense taken by the Pradhan so as to show that the facts brought by him to the notice of the authority had received consideration at the hands of the authority. The order need not as it were, come in close quarters with the various defenses put forward by the Pradhan, yet, it should indicate that the relevant defenses were kept in mind by the authority before directing the suspension of the Pradhan.

The order dated April 26, 1988 (Annexure P-5) is liable to be quashed on the ground that it does not contain any reason for placing the Petitioner, Sarv Dayal, under suspension and we quash the same. The writ petition shall stand allowed though we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.