Allowed

Kuldeep Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC22 Apr 2026CWP/5829/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An elected gram panchayat Pradhan, whose suspension had been stayed pending remand proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, challenged a BDO's direction to deposit Rs.1,73,292 with threat of recovery. The High Court held such recovery premature during pending adjudication, quashed the letter dated 23.02.2026, and left liberty to act afresh after final decision.

What did the court decide?

Office letter dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-9) directing deposit/recovery of Rs.1,73,292 quashed; respondents free to take fresh call after Deputy Commissioner's decision.

Kuldeep Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:HHC:12770

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.5829 of 2026

¶4

Decided on: 22^nd April, 2026

¶5

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kuldeep Singh …..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sat Prakash and Mr. Rucirangad Singh, Advocates.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

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

¶16

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶17

¶18

2026:HHC:12770

¶19

respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage.

¶20

2. The case

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

2026:HHC:12770

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

2026:HHC:12770

¶31

which the amount has been ordered to be recovered from him in accordance with law.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

2026:HHC:12770

¶36

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶37

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶38

any.

¶39

April 22, 2026 Mukesh

¶40

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Kuldeep Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kalta Spirits L-13 Vs the State of Hp and Others

Geeta Devi Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Sohan Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Inderjeet Verma Vs the State of Hp and Others

The Executive Engineer Iph Div Dalhousie Vs Kamal Nath

The Executive Engineer Iph Div Dalhousie Vs Chaman Singh