\% HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH : BILASPUR IVISION BENCH HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, JJ. WritA ea1 pR No. 4421 2009 > WP} 2&3} g3 ‘ RanJlt Sana, aged about 48 years, S/o Adhlr Sana R/o Gram Panchayat Balkmlthpm, Vlkaskhand Kombera, Tahs11 Pakhanjur, D1stt Kanker PPELLANT Respondant No.3 Versus ESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretaxy Panchayat and Rural DepaITJnent,‘ D.K,S. Bhawan, Raipur ub Divisional Officsr, Rsvsnue, Tahsil Pakhanjur, Distt. Kanker Direétor Panchayat D K S Bhawan Raipur SatyaranJaJJ Mme, aged 35 yeaxs, S/o Handas Mme Gram Panchayat BaJkunthpur V1kaskhand hmlibera, Tahs11 PakhanJur Dlstt Kankcr rit ‘A eal under Section Zrof the Court. of Chhatt I {Appeal to Division Bench] Act, 2006 Present. 1 Mr Parag Kotecha counsel for the appellant Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate With Mr. SK. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for respondents No. ’1 to 3/State on advance copy. ‘ - Petitioner None. for respondent No.4. ORAL - ORDER (Passed on 11.09.2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Slnha, J Heard. 2. The. appellantf respondent No.3 in the writ petition has nle this appeal against the order dated 23d June 2009 passed in Writ Petitlon (227) No 3286/08 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby, the writ petition nled by respondent No.4] petitioner was allowed and the matter was remltted :to the Sub Divisional Onicer‘to proceed in accordance with law. D A R S h W H' i d '. it appears mat respondent No.4; petirioner, who was workmg as the Acting Saipanch of concerned Gram Panchayat was ‘ ramdwd under Section 40 of ths Chhatfisgarh Pallchayat Raj Adhiliiyam, 1993 (for short “Ad, 1993’) vide order dated 4.8.2006 passed by tho Sub Divisional Omcor‘ Tho oréer of removal was challenged before the Collector in appeal alld the appeal was (liemissed Vide order dated 5.12.2006 and, thereafter, the revision preferred by respomient No.4fpetirioner before the Director, Panchaya: was also dismissed vide Oloer dated 12. 12.2007. . The respondent No‘4/ petitioner contended ’before the lealned Single Judge that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to him as envisaged under Section 4O of the Act, 1993. The learned Single Judge upheld the coutention and passed the impugned order dated 23$ June, 2099 for conducting a fresh inquiry after smpplying the copy of inquiry report, submitted by the inquiry Officer, to the petitioner as ’also for afford mg oppormnity of cmss-exammation etc’ . Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that. the learned Single Judge erred in iaw in remanding the matter to the Sub Divisional Gidcer on face of the admission of the respondent No.4fpetitioner regarding misconduct; therefore the order was bad in law. . after going through the entire order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not iind any such admission made by respondent No.4/petitioner as is argued by Mr. ?arag Kotecha. The learned Single Judgeohas scrutinized the matter keeping in mind the provision of Section 4O of the Act, 1993 and after holding that due opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner, has remitted the case to the Sub Divisional Officer for holding a fresh inquiry. . We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. “a; 3 notwithstajmmg the fact that thE ofiice has raised an objmtion that in such mattar a writ appeal “7911M not E€ f Chhattjsgarh {Appaal to undar the pz‘evision of Division B€nch} Act, 2006. w.‘k*"j Sd/- { Sunil Kumar Sinha J , l ‘ I Judge P1.‘aveen vaf‘ ‘ 4 A High Court o Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge is dismissed summan'ly