2025:HHC:1070 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.342 of 2025 Date of Decision: 6.1.2025 _____________________________________________________________ Suman Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.c. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 12.12.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, dismissing appeal under Section 148 of the Panchayat Raj Act 1994 read with Rule 143 of the HP Panchayati Raj General Rules 1997 having been filed by the petitioner herein laying therein challenge to order dated 20.9.2024, passed by the District Panchayat Officer, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, thereby ordering suspension of the petitioner on account of forgery, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings under Article 2025:HHC:1070 - 2 - 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that since there was specific direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner Sirmaur, to SDM (Civil) Nahan to conclude the inquiry within two months and such, inquiry was not concluded within the stipulated period of two months, Deputy Commissioner ought not have dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, rather her suspension should have been revoked on the afore ground. 3. Since careful perusal of Section 145 (3) of the Act itself suggests that suspension can only be revoked in case inquiry is not completed within six months, this Court is not convinced with the afore submission of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, in the case at hand, Deputy Commissioner had directed the Inquiry Officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Civil) Nahan, to conclude the inquiry within a period of two months vide order dated 30.9.2024, but as per provisions contained under Section 145 (3), inquiry, if any, initiated in terms of Section 145 can be concluded within six months, which in the case at hand, is yet to expire. 4. Before reply in the instant proceedings could be called from the respondents, Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, on 2025:HHC:1070 - 3 - instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the Inquiry officer i.e. SDM (Civil) Nahan, to conclude the inquiry in terms of order dated 30.9.2024 within a period of one month. 5. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. B. C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states that though time of six months prescribed under Section 148(3) shall expire on 20.3.2025, but all out efforts shall be made to conclude enquiry within a period of six weeks. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the Inquiry Officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Civil) Nahan, to conclude the inquiry against the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, failing which suspension order shall be deemed to have been revoked. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order. Pending applications also stand disposed of. January 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge