\\v @; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma.JJ. APPEI.LANT RESPONDENTS WRITAPPEAL N0^960011 Manoj Pandey, aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Gorelal Pandey, R/o Village- Chakarbhatha (Sarpanch), Block & Tahsil-Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantriaya, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Bilaspur, District, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Sub-DMsional Officer, Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilha, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.). 5. Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chakrabhatha, Block & Tahsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION-2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH H16H COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHl ACT. 20016 Appearance: Mr. R.S. Marhas and Mr. Rahiesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for respondens 1 to 4 on advance copy. Mr. Vijay Deshroukh Advocate for respondent No.5 on Caveat Petitioh No.334Q011. ; SUNIL KUMARSINHA.J. ORALORDER (30.06.2011) Heard on admission. Appellant- Manoj Pandey is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panehayat, Chakarbhatha. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.TO.201 1 (Annexure-P-1 in the writ petiUon). The appellant challenged the validity of the order dated 08.06.2011 on the ground that it was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 and 40 of thePanchayat Raj Adhiniyam, Aet 1993. ''<,, "..'N WRIT APPEAL N0. 296K011 The writ Courtjafter taking into consideration the prowision ofSeetion 39(1) (b) and Section 40 of the Act 1993, observed that the suspension ef the appellant was valid and proper. The writ pet'rtion, therefore, was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.06.0201 1. Mr. M.S. Marhas, learned counsel appearing on behaff of ie appellant, argued that there was no sufficient compliance of the provision of Section 39(1) (b) ofthe Act, 1993, as the charge sheet under the Act, 1993 for removalof the appellant from the office of Sarpanch was not propwly served. He took us to the provisions of Section 39 as also Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj AdhiniyamAct, 1993. A perusal of Section 39 (1)(b) would show that an office bearer of the Panchayat may be suspended by the prescribed auftority on whwn show cause notice along w'rth charge sheet under this act, has been served for removal from ofRce. In the present case, the order sheets of the preasribed authority would show that the prescribedauthority directed issuance ef notice under Section 40 of the Act, 1993 on 06.06.2011, in pursuance of which, a notice datied 06.06.2011 wasissued and the same was served on the appellant by way of afRxing on 07.06.2011. Copy of the notice under SecBon 40 has been filed as Annexure-P-6 in the writ appeai. The endorsement relating to afRxing, has been shown to the Court in another copy by Mr. Marhas. Thereafter, on 08.06.2011 , the order of suspension was issued and the appellant was pleased under suspension under SecUon 39 of the Act, 1993. In the above facts and cireumstance, we find ttet the prescribed authority issued the show causenoticeon 86.06.2011 along w'rth the charge sheet under Section 40 of the Act, 1993 for removal of the appellant from office, and thereafter on a subsequentday i.e. 08.(%.2011, the impugned order of suspension was issued. ^ In the above manner, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Writ Court, whereby the writ petition, challenging the order dated 08.06.2011 (Suspension order Annexure-P-1) was dismissed by the Writ Court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Rahut Sd/- iynilKumarSinba . .Judge Sd/- R.S. SHAKMA. Judge