CL^/^ IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CMHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPURfC.6.) W. P. fCYNo.'SO'^l of 2011 PETTTIONER Manoj Pandey, aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Gorelal Pandey, R/o Villdge- Chakarbhatha (Sarpanch), Block & Tahsil-Bilha,District-Bi|aspur(C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^y^ \^l^y ^^^ :1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya,Ratpur (C.6.) 2. * The Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur(C.G.) 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilha, ,> District-Bilaspur (C.6.) 4. Ch'ief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilha, District-Bilaspur (C.6.) ^'j? /fy "^y ••^"i- 5. Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chakarbhatha, Block <& Tahsil-Bilha, bistrict-Bilaspur (C.6.) tf WRIT PETTTION UNDERARTECLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA 1 PARTCCULARS OF THE PETinONER :- As stated above in cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS :- As stated above in eause title. 3. PARTICULARS OF OR&ER A6AINST WHIGH this PETITION IS MAbB:- ^ Order dated 08.06.2011 ;*• .1- rfiS" ^ ^•' '5^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (C) No. 3021 of2011 Manoj Pandey. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. W'RIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION • OEINDIA SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Aenihotri.J. Present: Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent No. lto3. ORDER rORAL) (Passed on 16"' day ofJune, 2011) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2011 (Annexure.P/1), whereby it has been decided to place the petitioner under suspension invoking the provisiops ofsection 39(l)(b) ofthe Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suspension of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, Grara ''' . ' ' • ' • ' Panchayat, Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, is not in accordance with law as prescribed under the provisions of section 39 ofthe Act, .1993 as notice was issued under the provisions of section 40(1) ofthe Act, 1993, which deals wi.th removal ofoffice bearers ofPanchayat. 3. On perusal of the documents and having heard learned counsel appearing for.the petitioner, it is evident that on 06.06.2011 (Annexure P/6), before taking steps under section 40(1) ofthe Act, * -^. 1993, a show cause notice alongwith charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. After issue of show cause notice, the petitioner was - placed under suspension under section 39(l)(b) ofthe Act, 1993, ':i -;i:i'i.k •yft' ^ N 2 - . on 08.06.2011. Thus, the contention ofthe petitioner deserves to be rejected. 4. The scheme of the Aet, 1993 is very clear that the prescribed authority may suspend the office bearer before taking a final decision for remoyal from the post under the provisions ofsection 40(1) ofthe Act, 1993. Section 39(l)(b) Qfthe Act provides that the prescribed authority may suspend from office any office bearer on whom show cause notiee alongwith charge sheet under this Act, has been served for removal from office i.e. under section 40(1) of the Act, 1993. Notices were issued to the petitioner for taking appropriate steps urider the provisions ofsection 40(1) oftheAcl and opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to put forward his case. 5. Section 39(l)(b) and section 40(1) of the Act, 1993, reads as under: "39. Suspension of office bearer of Panchayat.- (1) The prescribed authority may-suspend &om offlce any office bearer - (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) On whom, show cause notice alongwith charge sheet under this Act, has been served for removal from office. 40. Removal ofoffice bearers ofPanchayat. - (1) The State Govemment or the prescribed authority may after such enquiry as it may deem fit to make at any time, remove. an office bearer- (a) ifhehas been guilty of misconduct in the diseharge ofhis duties; or (b) if his continuance in office is undesirable in the interest ofthe public: Provided that no person shall be removed unless Ue has been given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed fromhis office. " -.{ j i *£ /^^\ •*.^// ^t. :a^': St tf1"' Aniil ^ On careful perusal ofthe provisions ofthe above referred sections, it is crystal clear that at the stage of show cause notice along with charge sheet for removal from office, an elected office bearer may b.e placed under suspension. In the case on hand, the entire, steps have been taken in accordance with law and it is just and proper. In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed being devoid of. ment. Sd/- ,,,„ latishK.Agnihef-l Judge , #i