The Himachal Pradesh High Court imposed a Cost of Rs.10,000/- on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenge to an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 25.11.2023, dismissing his appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur on 28.06.2022.
In terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur, suspension of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Koti Dhiman (respondent No.5), was revoked.
The case of the petitioner is that certain complaints against respondents no.5 to 7 i.e. Pradhan, Vice-Pradhan and Ward Members of Gram Panchayat, Koti Dhiman, Tehsil Dadahu, District Sirmour, respectively, were made by some villagers. One such complaint was filed by the petitioner. The allegation levelled against the aforementioned respondents was that they had mis-appropriated 600 cement bags, which were to be utilized for the development works of Panchayat Koti Dhiman.
A preliminary inquiry was conducted in the complaints. The preliminary inquiry report was submitted on 27.01.2022. On the basis of preliminary inquiry report, the District Panchayat Officer, Sirmaur, suspended respondent no.5, vide office order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 145 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act 1994 .
Feeling aggrieved against her suspension, respondent no.5 assailed the order dated 30.03.2022, before the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur, by filing appeal under Section 148 of the Act. Her appeal was accepted on 28.06.2022. While accepting her appeal, the appellate authority held that the inquiry report demonstrated that the cement bags had not been sold by the appellant (present respondent no.5). The cement bags were issued to the Up-Pradhan and Ward Member of Gram Panchayat, Koti Dhiman, under proper receipts.
These cement bags were found actually stored at different places as per the availability of space. Apprehension of the complainants (including the present petitioner) that storage of cement bags in different places would mean that the same were intended to be sold, was not accepted by the appellate authority.
It was also observed that for want of any evidence in that regard, no such intention could be discerned from the documents on record. The appellate authority also found that there was no notified godown available in Gram Panchayat, Koti Dhiman. Under the circumstances, the storage of cement meant for development works of Gram Panchayat, Koti Dhiman in other locations of Gram Panchayat was not unlawful, since, there was no evidence on record that Gram Panchayat, Koti Dhiman had its own store. The appellate authority also observed that the elected members of the concerned Gram Panchayat were not conversant with the Act, Rules and the procedure to be followed, therefore, it was the duty of Secretary, Gram Panchayat, to bring the procedure to the knowledge of elected members of the Gram Panchayat. No such communication of the Secretary, Gram Panchayat guiding the elected members of the Gram Panchayat in discharging their duties was found on the record. Taking note of facts and the submissions, the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmour, revoked the suspension of the Pradhan of concerned Gram Panchayat vide order dated 28.06.2022. Consequently, the order passed by the District Panchayat Officer Sirmaur on 30.03.2022, suspending respondent no.5 (Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Koti Dhiman) was set aside.
The petitioner assailed the order passed by the appellate authority by filing further appeal under Section 148 of the Act read with Rule 143 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Rules 1997 before the Divisional Commissioner Shimla. This appeal was dismissed on 25.11.2023.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua noted that as per the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, neither the petitioner nor his counsel had attended the effective hearings of the case before the Divisional Commissioner on 24.06.2023, 22.07.2023, 28.07.2023, 11.08.2023 and 26.08.2023, when the arguments were heard and the matter was listed for final order.
Significantly, against the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner has not even availed the alternative remedy available to him under the provisions of Section 148 of the H.P. Panchayti Raj Act 1994 and Rule 143 of H.P. Panchayati Raj Rules 1997.
The Deputy Commissioner had held on facts that 600 cement bags, which as per petitioner’s allegations had been sold by respondents No.5 to 7, were actually found stored at different places in the concerned Gram Panchayat; Storage of 600 cement bags at different places was on account of there being no notified godown of Gram Panchayat, Koti Dhiman and the procedural requirements having not been brought to the notice of the elected members of the Gram Panchayat by the Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat. There was no embezzlement of the cement bags. There had been no misappropriation of the funds as alleged by the petitioner.
The impugned order dated 25.11.2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, dismissing petitioner’s appeal against the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 28.06.2022 makes it evident that during the pendency of the proceedings, the regular inquiry against the respondents was got conducted. In the regular inquiry, respondent No.5 was exonerated from the charges levelled against her. Respondent No.7-Ward Member of concerned Gram Panchayat was issued a warning to be careful in future.
In the given facts, the Court observed that when the regular inquiry had been concluded in the complaint filed by the petitioner, wherein respondent No.5 was exonerated and such inquiry report has been accepted by the competent authority, learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, was justified in observing that the appeal filed by the petitioner seeking continuation of suspension of the respondents on the strength of preliminary inquiry report had lost its sting. Petitioner’s appeal had been rendered infructuous on account of intervening developments. There was no option for the Divisional Commissioner, but to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner against revocation of respondent No.5’s suspension ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur.
“In view of above discussion, we fail to understand as to why the petitioner has moved this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in the Chief Minister’s ‘Apda Rahat Kosh’ within four weeks. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of”,the order reads.