IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 317 of 2010. Decided on: 29.10.2010. ________________________________________________ Amar Singh Raghwa. … Petitioner. Versus Divisional Commissioner & anr. … Respondents. ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. For respondent No.2 : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. ___________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be stated thus: 2. Respondent No.2 Smt. Kaushalya Devi is Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kapahi, District Mandi. A show cause notice dated 30.3.2010, Annexure P-1 was served upon her detailing as many as six acts of commission and omission in the nature of misconduct allegedly committed by her in her capacity as Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. Pending inquiry into these allegations, she was placed under suspension vide order dated 11.5.2010, Annexure P-2. In the meantime, a charge sheet dated 18.5.2010, Annexure P-3 was served upon her. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 3. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid order dated 11.5.2010, Annexure P-2, whereby she was suspended, she filed an appeal in the Court of the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division at Mandi, H.P., who vide order dated 19.5.2010, Annexure P-4 stayed operation thereof. 4. At this juncture an application under Order 39, Rule 4 read with Section 151 and Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was filed before the Divisional Commissioner by four persons including the petitioner herein, namely, Shri Bhagi Rath Jaswal, Shri Man Singh Raghwa, Shri Kishori Lal Rathour and Shri Amar Singh Raghwa claiming themselves to be the complainants in the aforesaid inquiry against respondent No.2, with a prayer to stay operation of the aforesaid order dated 19.5.2010, Annexure P-4. Consequently, the stay granted by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 19.5.2010, Annexure P-4 as aforesaid was vacated with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi to complete the inquiry within the prescribed period and submit a copy of the inquiry report in the Court on the next date of hearing fixed for 2.8.2010. 5. This order was challenged by respondent No.2 by way of CMPMO No. 251 of 2010 before this Court. Though a copy of order dated 19.7.2010 passed in that matter (CMPMO No. 251 of 2010) is not available on the records of the present petition, yet operative part thereof 3 has been reproduced by the petitioner in the petition in paragraph 5 at page 5, which is to the following effect:- “From the bare look at the order, Annexure P-6, it is clear that the order has been passed without examining the record and also the order is not a speaking one. So, the same is set aside and it is directed that the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi shall decide the application for grant of stay by a speaking order, within two weeks and in the meanwhile his order dated 19.5.2010 shall remain operative. Copy of order be given Dasti to the learned Assistant Advocate General, who shall fax the same to the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi today itself. Petition stand disposed of accordingly.” 6. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 19.7.2010 of this Court passed in CMPMO No. 251 of 2010, the Divisional Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 10.8.2010, Annexure P-7 has restored the stay order dated 19.5.2010, Annexure P-4 on the following observations contained in the last two paragraphs of the order:- “I have considered the arguments/ submissions made by the parties and have gone through the record and law on the point. It transpires from the record and pleadings of the parties that the Inquiry Officer has taken up the whole record pertaining to the present case and has also examined the witnesses 4 involved in the inquiry against the present appellant. These facts of the case clearly establish that the stay vacated by this Court on 5.7.2010 at present has little significance as there remains no apprehension of tampering with the record or influencing the witnesses by the present appellant. So far as the reply/arguments submitted by the complainants are concerned, these appear to be concerned to the Inquiry Officer as a detailed inquiry is required to be conducted by him in accordance with the provisions prescribed in the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act and rules framed therein. Moreover, it has also been held by the Hon’ble High Court, H.P. Shimla in CMPMO No. 69 of 2010 decided o n 23.3.2010 in case titled as “Amrit Lal versus State of H.P. & others” that being an elected office, with deeper circumspection only, orders could be passed keeping away the elected persons from their office. In view of the above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the stay granted by this court on 19.5.2010 by this court should continue till further orders. The Deputy Commissioner, Mandi (HP) is directed to get the inquiry completed within 2 months and take appropriate action in accordance with the law. A copy of the order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi (HP) for compliance.” 7. It has been very vehemently argued by Mr. Ajay Chandel, the learned counsel representing respondent 5 No.2, Smt. Kaushalaya Devi that since the aforesaid persons, namely, Shri Bhagi Rath Jaswal, Shri Man Singh Raghwa, Shri Kishori Lal Rathour and Shri Amar Singh Raghwa, are in no way concerned with the inquiry pending against her, they had no legal right to file the aforesaid application under Order 39, Rule 4 read with Section 151 and under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, seeking either vacation of the aforesaid order dated 19.5.2010 or for that matter to be a party to the proceedings. It is further submitted that even notice of this application was not served upon her. However, the fact remains that names of all these persons find mention in the list of parties to the impugned order dated 10.8.2010 as complainants. 8. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 states at the bar that records of the Divisional Commissioner are available with him and the same are submitted for perusal of the Court. It is further stated that the inquiry against respondent No.2 has since been concluded. If it is so, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as also intervening events such as that admittedly Panchayat elections in the State are going to be held somewhere in the month of December, 2010, it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice to finalize the disciplinary proceedings pending against respondent No.2 and to bring the same to its logical conclusion at the 6 earliest as such a course would also be in the interest of respondent No.2. 9. In view of the above, without entering into an elaborate discussion of the averments set up in the petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel/ learned Deputy Advocate General at the bar, so as to obviate the possibility of any prejudice being caused to either case on behalf of the parties, no effective orders are required to be passed in this petition for the reason that the inquiry against respondent No.2 has already been concluded as stated by the learned Deputy Advocate General. It goes without saying that follow up action on the inquiry report shall be taken by the concerned authorities at the earliest and preferably before initiation of the process for fresh Panchayat election scheduled to be held in December, 2010. 10. It is made clear that the petitioner, Shri Amar Singh Raghwa shall not be connected with the inquiry proceedings against respondent No.2, Smt. Kaushalaya Devi, except in accordance with law. Needless to say, these observations shall also operate qua the remaining three persons, namely, shri Bhagi Rath Jaswal, Shri Man Singh Raghwa and Shri Kishori Lal Rathour, unless otherwise than in accordance with law in their capacity as the so called complainants. 7 11. Petition stands disposed of, as also the pending CMP, if any. Copy ‘Dasti’. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. October 29, 2010. (cr)