CWP No.1055 of 2007 7.1.2008 Present : Mr.Sanjay Jaswal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy.A.G. for the Respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.Suneet Goel, counsel for respondent No.5. Costs have been deposited by respondent No.5 but reply still not filed. Sh.Goel prays for further time. Keeping in view the previous stop order no further time can be granted and the petition is being disposed of on the material available on record. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for grant of the following amongst other reliefs: “i)That the record of the present case may kindly be summoned and after perusing the same the respondents may be directed to suspend the respondent No.5 who is at present as Up-Pradhan Gram Panchayat Jangal against whom in four criminal cases charges have been framed by the ld.Judicial Magistrate Class-Ist Class Kangra at Dharamshala under Section 409, 420, 467, 471 IPC by invoking the provision of law as mentioned in Section 145(1)(a) of the Act, in the interest of Justice.” Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are that the respondent No.5 who is now elected as Up-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Jangal, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. was previously elected as Pradhan of the Panchayat. An FIR being FIR No.21/98 under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 471 IPC was registered against the respondent No.5 at Police Station (Enforcement) North Zone, Dharamshala in respect of the period when the respondent No.5 was working as Pradhan of the Panchayat. After investigation, 4 challans were filed and the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-II, Kangra at Dharamshala framed the charges against the respondent No.5 under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 471 IPC in four cases. These four cases are still pending. The complaint of the petitioner is that in terms of Section 145(1)(a) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since the charges were framed against the respondent No.5 under Sections 409, 467 and 471 IPC the prescribed authority should have suspended the respondent No.5 from holding any office. Despite various complaints being made by the petitioner no action has been taken on the complaints and the matter is still pending before respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner, Kangra who has not taken any action. This Court in Bala Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, 2002 (1) Shim.L.C. 439, has held that Section 145 of the Act does not violate Article 20 of the Constitution of India and has upheld its validity and had directed the respondents to consider the matter and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The present case is virtually identical and we, therefore, dispose of this petition with the direction to respondent No.3 to consider the case of respondent No.5 and pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 145 of the Act. The respondent No.3 is directed to ensure that necessary orders are passed on or before 28.2.2008. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge January 7, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ) PV Judge.