IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No. 671 of 2005 & CMP No. 688 of 2007 Date of Decision : June 20, 2008 Mangat Ram and another …Petitioners. Versus: State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R. B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners/non-: Mr. B. C. Negi, Advocate. applicants. For the respondents : Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A. G. For the applicant : Mr. G. D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. R. B. Misra, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 14.6.2005 passed by Block Development Officer, Development Block, Chopal, whereby the Secretary/Chairman Watershed Association, Jubli has been placed under suspension. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, said suspension order has been passed illegally where the Development Officer is not competent to pass such an order. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 According to learned counsel for the petitioners, suspension order has not indicated the definite charges against the petitioners. It also does not indicate anything after suspension order and about conducting the disciplinary proceedings, if any, in respect of the charges and nothing is emanating from the order that the same has been passed with the application of mind. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, after filing of the present writ petition against the suspension order dated 14.6.2005, this Court vide its order dated 15.9.2005 was pleased to issue notice and was further pleased to stay the said suspension order on 6.11.2006 i.e. after about a period of one year and in the interregnum also the authorities have not served any charge-sheet and has not taken any action regarding making any inquiry by serving any charge-sheet and the petitioners have unnecessarily been harassed by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to indicate about the actual empowerment and authority of Block Development Officer. It could not be pointed out who is the competent authority in respect of putting the petitioners under suspension and who is the competent authority at whose instance the disciplinary proceedings have to be conducted. Nothing has been brought to our notice as about the role of Gram Panchayat or Block Development Officer or Deputy Commissioner or any of the authority of the State Government. 3 The revised scheme placed before us for perusal does not indicate clearly as to who were the authorities clearly specified to deal with the service conditions of the employed persons. The Scheme placed before us however is silent about conducting the disciplinary proceedings, about the financial irregularities and procedural irregularities by a employed person. In these circumstances, we are not able to appreciate the text of the suspension order and the order having been made by the Block Development Officer. Prima facie, it appears the Block Development Officer has not been legally authorized to pass such order. Therefore, the order cannot be said to be legally sustainable. 5. Keeping in view the submissions of Mr. G. D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, the residents of Gram Panchayat, Jubli, intend to bring the kind notice of this Court about the anomalies, irregularities and mal-functioning of Watershed Association, Jubli, through a separate application, but such information may not be of any help to adjudicate the present issue in question. 6. Since we are of considered view that the impugned order dated 14.6.2005 has not been passed by a competent authority, in these circumstances, the said order is set aside with an observation that the authorities are at liberty to take appropriate legal action including disciplinary proceedings, if so necessary, against the petitioners in consonance to the prevailing provisions of norms and law applicable to the Watershed Association, Jubli and in doing so, the petitioners 4 shall in any case cooperate with the Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority. As assured by the petitioners, during the course of inquiry an endeavour shall be made on their part to associate in such way that directly or indirectly the inquiry/ disciplinary proceedings may not be said to be effected. 7. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. After allowing this writ petition, there is no necessity to deal the CMP No. 688/2007 on merits, therefore, without making any observation on the merits to the contents indicated in the aforesaid CMP, it is dismissed. ( R. B. Misra ), Judge. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 20, 2008 (rana)