Amrit Lal vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Pradhan of Gram Panchayat was suspended initially on 25.11.2009 on the only ground that he delayed payment of a bill to a Contractor. According to the Pradhan, only on account of certain complaints in respect of the work executed by the Contractor, the payment was delayed.

The learned Additional Advocate General points out that the complaints had already been looked into by the authorities concerned and in fact the Junior Engineer concerned had submitted report regarding the execution of the work, yet payment was deliberately withheld by the Pradhan. I find that the suspension from November, 2009 continued till February, 2010. He was restored to his office but again suspended by the impugned order Annexure P-7 dated 8th February, 2010. It is directed in the impugned order that the enquiry should be completed within one month. That period expired on 8th March, 2010.

According to the Petitioner, the enquiry has not been completed but he is continued under suspension. Being an elected office, with deeper circumspection only, orders could be passed keeping away the elected persons from their office. Be that as it may, since the period of one month fixed for the enquiry is already over and since suspension was ordered on 25.11.2009, there will be a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi to consider whether it is required under law to keep the Petitioner under continued suspension and in case enquiry could not be completed within the said period fixed, whether the Petitioner can be restored to his office pending completion of the enquiry, keeping in mind also the fact that only charge is withholding of bill for payment for which the Petitioner had a plausible explanation. Order as above shall be passed within two days from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment.

The petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications.

Dasti copy on usual terms.