smmE WWA @ [ff’EKGOL- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT O_F CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONmmo. H‘im /2006 PETITIONER g : Niramjan Lal Verma 3‘70 Aanekram Verma Age-d ‘abbut 48 years Casm— Kurmi, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat- Parsada (Raymond) Tehsjl- Janjgir Dist- Janjgir Champa (CG) VerSUSi ‘ RESPONDENT§ Maia of Chhattisgarh z"’ . Through Collector, Janjgir Champa (CG) Sub-Divisional Ofiicer Dist- Janj gir Champa (CG) ' lNaib Tehs‘ildar Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir Champa (CG) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF' . INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. ] W XI—HC—22 W W WW WW 1 1.9.2006 Shri H.S.Ahluwa1ia. counsel for the netitioner. Shli Sumesh Bajaj, Gavernment Advocat€ for th€ Stata/ respondents, on advance copy. Heard fmallv with the consent of the narties. Onier dictated a3 follows : ORAI‘b ORDER 11 1 n f}nn£\ / ‘LL-w.‘vvv’ This netim'on is directed, against the order dated 19.6.006. passed bV nmceeding initiated under Adhinivam. 1993 for removal of Gram Panchavat. Parsada. been naSsed under Section netitioner has been susnendecl bV the said authoritv. 'The bu‘ef facts are that 2 the Prescribed Authoritv during the Dendencv of a Section 40 of the Panchavat Rai of the petitioner. who is a Sarnanch The aforesaid order is said to have 39 of the said Act. bv which. the on certain complaint; a nroceeding under Section 4O of the afomsaid Act was drawn against the Detitioner and the enuuirv was being conducted bV the Prescribed Authoritv in this regard. The Prescribed Authoritv. after nreiiminarv satisfaction. issued a show cause notice to the Detitioner. It is stated that th cause notice and he refused this edect was submitted be Prescribed Authoritv. after £0 impugned order dated 19.6.2 failed to receive the notice of e oetitioner did not receive the Show to receive the same and a renort to fore the Prescribed Authoritv. The 31g through such renort. nassed the 006. saving that the petitioner has the Prescribed Authoritv and in this XI—HC-22 W m EW,W§,W mm W.:9.-.4+5.§Lf M mm WW mw WWW m L“ W manner, he has not obeved 1 therefore. he is susnended un The petitioner flled a n before the Collector, saving conflrmed. The aforesaid re Collector and vide order dat‘ was confirmed under Section . p€titioncr filed a regular anm anneal was also dismissed 1.9.2006. bassed in a revenue (Annexure P- 5}. Learned counsel for the action. taken bv the Prescribe bv the Collector. are without be auashed bv this Hon’ble C Section 39 of the said Act, On the other hand. lea His submissic Collector was an annealable alternative remedv of anneal b I have heaid, learned counsel for the parties at length and have also nerused the records Section 4O of the Panclllayat Raj Adhinivam. 1993 provides for removal .of any omce bearer of Panchavat. Sub Section (ll of this Section Drovides that the ' such maven he order, passed bv the said Court. :ler Section 39 of the said Act. anresentation against the said order that the said order should not be presentation was dismissed bV the 3d 14.8.2006, the susnension order 39 f2) of the said Act. Thereafter. the :al before the Collector and the said bv the Collector vide order dated case N0. 6-A/89f15l vear 2005-2006 petitioner submits that the aforesaid d Authoritv and coniirmation thereof iurisdiction and the same deserve to burt. He refers to the nrovisions of med. counsel for the State onnoses n is that the order passed bv the ‘ order and the netitioner has an efore the Director lPanchavatl. of the writ petition. State Government or the nrescribed (b) if his continuance in of the public: Provided that no person shall be removed unless he has show cause why he should not be There are certain explanations also {ice is undesirable in the interest of (1) The prescribed authority may suspend from onice any (mice bearer— (a) against whom charges have been framed in any criminal proceedings under Chapter V-A. VI, *(IX), IX-A, X, XII, Section 302, 303, V3 D4-B, 305, 306, 312 to 318: 366-A, 366-B: 373 to 377 Vof Chapter XVI, Section 395 to 398, 408, 409, 458 to 460 of Chapter XVII and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860' (XLV of 1860) or under any law for the time being in force for the prevention of adulteration of food stuff and drugs, 1E Suppression of immoral traffic in women and children, Prevention of Corruption); or six x x) (2). The order of suspension under sub~section (l) shall be reported to the State Government within a period of protecn'on of civil rights and been given an opportunity to removed from his oihce. attached to this Section. Section 39 of the Act provides as under : XI—HC‘22 W EFF mm mmm Hi%a WW iWW aqWm WW ' authority may after such en(_ui1y as it deem flt to make at any fimg, remove an o$ce bearer- (a) if he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duu‘es; or ten davs and shall be Government mav deem fit to pass. is not continued bv the from the date of recei‘nt have vacated. A nemsal of Section 4O that these Sections. nowhere Panchavat refuses to take/receive summons, notices or a show scribed authoritv under Section 4O suspended from his post. The View taken bv the Prescribed Ohicer appears to be one strange to the 40 of the Panohavat Rai Adhiniyam, cause notice. issued bv the p1 of the Act. then. he shall be ‘e nrovisions of Section 39 and 1993. Drovides. no action against the anv authoritv in any pmceedin of the proceedings as provided under Section 40 is one in the nature of enquiry and the authority, proceeding under Section 40, if comes to the conclusion that the notice issued to the office sed bv him. then. at the most, the bearer of the Panchavat is re authoritv. shall be competen to proceed against him ex-parte or shall be comnetent to hold th against the notice issued agalnst him and he shall the matter on the basis of material placed before him i.e without all pass final order under Section 40 reply of the respondent and sh 11’1 subiect to such orders as the State If the order of suspension State Govemment within 90 days of such renort it shall be deemed to It is a simple preposition of law that unless the statute interest of a person can be taken by ‘ Q bending against him. The nature t the respondent has nothing to say decide as well as 39 of the Act wouldshow provide that if any office bearer of XI-HC—22 . E W , W , W @ m m . 9&634 200 6 mum n... mm mm WH%H mmmm ’4 f WW§WW ézwm XI-HC-22 EW,W§;,W 3mm Wm‘WP4§§4A P a 31mm WW ‘ ‘mmut%a “—S— WW#’WW WW éawanw within the comnetence of the authoritv whila deaiinq in a matter under Section 4O u11163$ snec ifled grounds for passing an order of ‘ susnension were prevailing in i vcase. Admittedlv. no grounds for nassinq the order under Section 39 were prevailing in this case and the order passed bv the Prescribed authoritv on 19 6.2006 appears to be completelv without iurisdiction and it can not be sustained. In the Iesult. the petition is allowed. The order passed bv the Prescribed authoritv on 19.6.2006 is herebv quashed. In consequence. the order of confirmation as well as the order said to have been passed bV the Collector in appeal are also quashed. However. the specifled authoritv is free to conclude the proceedings initiated under Section 40 of the Act in accordance with law. 5d!- Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge W‘i’a‘