HP High Court Orders Reinstatement of Suspended Pradhan; Says Delay in Deciding Appeals Undermines Justice and Notes Rising Late-Term Suspensions
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel directed that a suspended Pradhan from Chamba district be reinstated pending the outcome of her appeal, holding that undue delays in deciding such appeals undermine the purpose of justice. The Court noted with concern a growing pattern of suspending elected Pradhans across various parts of the State toward the end of their tenure. Observing that the Appellate Authority failed to decide the matter despite concluding arguments, the Bench ordered that the petitioner continue performing her duties until the appeal is resolved in accordance with law.
The petitioner, Kanto Devi, serving as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dand, Development Block Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, was suspended by the District Panchayat Officer on 19 July 2025. Challenging the suspension order, she filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, under Section 148 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The appeal, titled Kanto Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., was heard on 21 August 2025. As per the record, arguments were concluded on that date, and the matter was fixed for final decision on 4 September 2025.
However, the order dated 4 September 2025, issued not by the Deputy Commissioner but by the Reader to the Deputy Commissioner, recorded that the Presiding Officer had to proceed to Bharmaur for supervision of relief and evacuation operations in light of a disaster situation and therefore directed that the matter be listed on 4 December 2025. The petitioner submitted that this adjournment for three months caused prejudice, especially since her elected tenure as Pradhan was due to end in December 2025. She argued that such delay in disposal of her appeal effectively nullified the right to challenge her suspension. The petitioner further submitted that although an application for interim stay of suspension had been filed, no relief had been granted by the appellate authority.
The Court observed that the trend of suspending duly elected Pradhans of various Gram Panchayats in different parts of the State at the fag end of their tenure raises eyebrows. The judgment stated that when an appeal is preferred against an order of suspension, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to decide such appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
The Court noted that despite the suspension order having been passed on 19 July 2025, the appeal remains pending and even the application for stay has not been decided. Justice Goel further recorded that what further worries the Court is that through the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 21 August 2025, it is demonstrated that arguments were heard on the said date and the case was listed for final decision on 4 September 2025, but the subsequent order dated 4 September 2025, passed by the Reader of the Deputy Commissioner, who in law had no power to pass any order, states that the case was listed for 4 September 2025 for hearing which is totally contrary to the record.
The Bench observed that this order further contains that before leaving, the Presiding Officer conveyed that the next date of hearing be fixed for 4 December 2025, which, if correct, demonstrates the insensitiveness of the Presiding Officer vis-à-vis the issue which he was dealing with, i.e., an appeal filed by an elected member of a Gram Panchayat against the order of her suspension.
The Bench recorded: “Be that as it may, as now the next date is given as 04.12.2025 which date having been given by the Reader of the Appellate Authority cannot be construed as any effective date because on said date the Appellate Authority will have to further issue notices to the parties, this petition is disposed of with the direction that till the Appellate Authority decides the appeal in accordance with law by following the procedure, which has to be followed in deciding the appeal, the operation of the suspension order dated 19.07.2025 is hereby stayed and the petitioner shall be allowed to perform her duties as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Assistant Advocate General.
Case Title: Kanto v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Case Number: CWP No.15561 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
