Judgment : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 8.12.2025 and 10.12.2025 annexed as Annexure P-25 and P-28, show- cause notices/communications and any other act of the respondents in pursuance thereof, as may be found illegal, arbitrary or volatile of law. (b) That issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to refrain from taking any further action in pursuance of the impugned orders and to restore the status quo and as on the date immediately prior to the said actions, pending final disposal of this petition (c) To Direct the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to consider her objections in accordance with law, with due compliance of all due process requirements. (d) To direct the respondents to disclose all records, documents and information relied upon for any action taken against the petitioner and to place them before this Court.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sanwal, Block Development Tissa, District Chamba, H.P., has been placed under suspension by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, vide Annexure P-25, dated 08.12.2025. The reason mentioned in the order for placing the petitioner under suspension is lodging of an FIR against him, in lieu whereof, the petitioner was stated to have remained in judicial custody for 48 days. 3. Record demonstrates that the appeal was filed by the petitioner against the suspension order and the application filed alongwith the appeal for stay of operation of the suspension order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 10.12.2025 and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner yesterday argued that the order of suspension is per se bad for the reason that in terms of the provisions of Section 145(2-A) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, no officer bearer shall be placed under suspension under sub-section (1) or (2) unless he has been given an opportunity of being heard. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the present case, the impugned order of suspension was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the order of suspension was void ab initio. Learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that this important aspect of the matter was ignored by the learned Appellate Authority and therefore, the order, in terms whereof, the prayer for stay of suspension order has been rejected, deserves to be set aside. 5. In light of the submissions, which were made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner yesterday, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to have specific instructions as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before issuance of the suspension order or not. In response thereto, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the instructions received from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, dated 18.12.2025, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “Kindly refer to the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the above-titled writ petition, whereby the Learned Additional Advocate General has been directed to obtain specific instructions as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order. That it is respectfully submitted that the suspension was carried out on the basis on the report received from the SHO Tissa vide his letter no. Nil dated 18-09-2025 wherein it was informed that Sh. Mohan Lal, the Petitioner had remained in custody for a period of 48 days in connection with FIR No. 02/2025 dated 03-01-2025 registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 1208 of the IPC, and section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, suspension was carried out under section 145 (1) (a) of the HP Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which reads as, "The prescribed authority may suspend from office any office bearer who remained in custody for more than fourteen days on a criminal charge..." As the action was taken based on the report of SHO Tissa regarding custody of the Petitioner, no show cause notice was issued in the matter. It is further submitted that a regular inquiry under section 146 of the IIP Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 has also been ordered in the matter, on dated 17-12-2025 and it is essential that the Petitioner, being the GP Pradhan should remain suspended so as not to tamper with the record of the Gram Panchayat during the conduct of the enquiry.” 6. A perusal of instructions thus demonstrates that indeed no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before the order of suspension was passed. The stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner in the instructions that suspension order was passed under Section 145(1)(a) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act and as the action was taken on the report of SHO, Tissa, regarding the custody of the petitioner, no show cause notice was issued in the matter, also demonstrates that the statutory provisions of Section 145(2-A) have been breached with impunity by the authority in the present case. 7. In fact, it is a very sorry state of affairs that the statutory authorities are placing the elected members of the Gram Panchayats under suspension without complying with the statutory requirements of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The Court is not even remotely suggesting that in the facts of the case, the petitioner could not have been suspended but then the procedure prescribed in the Act had to be religiously followed before any such order was passed by the Authority. 8. In the present case, as admittedly sub-Section (2-A) of Section 145 of the Act was breached, the suspension order of the petitioner is indeed void ab initio. In these circumstances, this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, allows this petition and quashes the order of suspension dated 8th of December, 2025 itself, with liberty to the statutory authority to proceed against the petitioner in the matter, strictly in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.