^y\^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR ^ Coram: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar. JJ Writ Appeal No;155of2008 Smt. Malti Devi Patley & another Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Post for Judgment : ^>/1 0/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge f»" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Coram: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar. JJ. Writ Appeal No. 155 of 2008 APPELLANTS RESPQNDENTS 1. Smt. Malti Devi Patley, aged about 27 years, W/o Shri Uttam Patle, R/o Village and Post Khaija, Tahsil Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa 2. Kamal Prasad Diwakar, aged about 30 years, S/o Bhanu Prasad Diwakar, R/o Village and Post Khaija, Tahsil Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa Vs, 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Additional Collector, Janjgir Champa 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Distt. Janjgir (Champa) 4. Smt. Babita Parihar, aged about 25 years, W/o Netram R/o Village Khaija, Tahsil Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT. 2006 Appearance: Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. ^tT^w ^ Writ Appeal No. 155 of 2008 JUDGMENT ( 6 .10.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil KumarSinha.J. (1) Being aggrieved with the order dated 11.7.2008 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 3652/2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellants/petitioners have filed this Writ Appeal. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Smt. Babita Parihar (respondent No.4 herein) was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khaija, Tehsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa. She was suspended by order dated 24.9.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir on account offraming of charges u/ss 409, 420,467,468,471 & 477-A IPC in Criminal Case No. 607/2007 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Janjgir. The said order of suspension was revoked by the impugned order dated 30 June, 2008 (Annexure- P/9 in the Writ Petition) u/s 39 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Rajya Adiniyam, 1993 (in short the Act 1993) on the ground that afte'r passing of the order of suspension, the same was not confirmed by the Prescribed Authority as per provisions of Section 39 (2) of the Act 1993. The order of revocation was impugned in the Writ Petition by the petitioners on the ground that the order of suspension was stayed by the Additional Collector, in an appeal filed by respondent No.4 which order was later on quashed by the hligh Court, as such, the suspension order was never forwarded by the Prescribed Authority in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act, 1993, therefore, question of confirmation of the same by the Competent Authority within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of such report, does not arise, and revocation of the suspension was bad-in-law. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court ,^^^a^,. fw ^. i'w ;%-.. "^•^.^ ?i,' '^ws:^ s. 1 '••3K^'Kt i '^2 .£ Writ Appeal No. 155 of 2008 in the matter of Ariunlal Gupta -Vs- State of M.P. and others. 1998 (1) JLJ 128. The learned Single Judge, distinguishing the above judgment, held that in the present case the suspension order was sent to the Collector for confirmation, however, even after lapse of 90 days, the order was not confirmed. Therefore, the Sub- Divisional Officer has not committed any illegatity while revoking the order of suspension after the lapse of 90 days when the same was not confirmed in accordance with law. (3) Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/petitioners, submitted that the tearned Single Judge erred in law while interpreting the provisions of Section 39 (1) (2) ofthe Act, 1993. (4) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the records of the Writ Appeal as also the Writ Petition. (5) Section 39 (1) of the Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam 1993 reads as under:- "39. Suspension of office bearer of Panchayat.-(l) The prescribed authority may suspend from office any office bearer- (a) against whom charges have been framed in any criminal proceedings under Chapter V-A, VI, IX-A, X, XII, Section 302, 303, 304-B, 305, 306, 312 to 318, 366-A, 366-B, 373 to 377 of ChapterXVI, 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 (suppression of immoral traffic in women / :..^sa^,,., ^:"""'\ .;^.:;--:,. f .^'^ s Writ Appeal No. 155 of 2008 and children, protection of civil rights and Prevention of Corruption); (6) Section 39 (2) provides that the order of suspension under sub- section (1) shall be reported to the State Government within a period of 10 days and shall be subject to such orders as the State Government may deem fit to pass. It further provides that if the order of suspension is not confirmed by the State Government within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of such report it shall be deemed to have been vacated". (7) A perusal of the provisions of Section 39 would make it clear that after passing of the order of suspension under sub-section (1), it is incumbent on the concerned authority to report such suspension to the State Government for which a period of 10 days has been provided. It is undisputed that the State Government delegated its power u/s 39 (2) to confirm the suspension to the "Collector" vide a subsequent notification. A perusal of the order of suspension dated 24.9.2007 (Annexure-P/2 in the Writ Petition) would show that after passing of the said order, on the same day, i.e. on 24,9.2007 itself, the Sub-Divisional Officer has sent it to the concerned Collector with an endorsement for its confirmation. Therefore, it cannot be argued that first part of Section 39 (2) was not complied with. If after receipt of the order for its confirmation, the Collector did not confirm it within the prescribed period of 90 days, then the consequences have to be followed and no exception can be taken for it. r ^ •^•%.'•^. 'f^ Writ Anneal No. 155 of 2008 (8) For the forgoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the order passed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition against the said order. (9) The appeal has no merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (10) No order as to cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge vatti