2026:HHC:12770 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5829 of 2026 Decided on: 22nd April, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kuldeep Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sat Prakash and Mr. Rucirangad Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the grievance raised in the writ petition, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the order being passed hereinafter, reply of this writ petition is not required to be called for from the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:12770 respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. The case 2(i). Petitioner is duly elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Thaneikothi, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba. A complaint was lodged against him with respect to his working as Pradhan of the concerned gram panchayat, which led to an inquiry conducted into the complaint. 2(ii). Inquiry report (Annexure P-1) was furnished by the inquiry committee. Based upon the inquiry report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) by respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner, District Chamba. Petitioner furnished his reply to the show cause notice on 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.3-District Panchayat Officer, Chamba vide order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), suspended the petitioner with immediate effect. 2(iii). Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred appeal invoking Section 148 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 143(1)(e) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997 before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. The authority though admitted the appeal, but did not stay the 3 2026:HHC:12770 suspension order of the petitioner. This led the petitioner to institute CWP No.15109 of 2025. The writ petition was disposed of on 18.09.2025 with direction to the Divisional Commissioner to decide petitioner’s appeal expeditiously. Till the decision of the appeal, petitioner’s suspension order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) was stayed. 2(iv). Pursuant to the directions issued in CWP No.15109 of 2025, the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala decided petitioner’s appeal on 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-8). The appeal was allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba on 09.09.2025 was set aside. The case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba for deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner alongwith his stay application with a reasoned & speaking order and till such time, operation of the suspension order dated 22.08.2025 was also stayed. 2(v). Petitioner’s grievance is to the office letter issued by respondent No.5-the Block Development Officer, Development Block Tissa, District Chamba on 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-9). In terms of the said office letter, the concerned Block Development Officer has directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,73,292/-, failing 4 2026:HHC:12770 which the amount has been ordered to be recovered from him in accordance with law. 3. There is force in the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that when inquiry into the subject matter is pending deliberations before the competent authority, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, when petitioner’s suspension based upon the said inquiry proceedings has already been stayed and a final call into the inquiry proceedings is yet to be taken by the competent authority, respondent No.5 could not have ordered recovery against the petitioner on account of allegations, which are yet to be adjudicated upon by the competent authority. The impugned decision as conveyed in office letter dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-9) is, therefore, premature at this stage. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the decision/direction conveyed in office letter dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set aside. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to take a fresh call on the subject matter after the decision is taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba in terms of order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala. 5 2026:HHC:12770 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 22, 2026 Judge Mukesh