^) 'iffi^ |.||||||||:^,l^|^^|9|||(|:)|'|Ni||i|9i'i^ a^/%jtQ!^lR68Jjt:^!m^|i|yi^^^p^g(39^ |BjOs|s:!JeiJ^^|ciSMiS:l'|l|n:|j.t-l®^1^ iu^ej0|:|o:'.;^ou||{is^p9l©gig^^ '^m :M:'M ,^.t^iN!^»¥^nM."SINnS' il.V%IO^Ci^;|^%^.\:;:^.^:;;'S^ .fSlQNdll^^' '^'^oN'Eiusl^^^TONt^^i-^^'ylsiN^ :^t?t'i)t{,'^li8:RUOdS8J1, J^|^ltoli{j^jq^|8^en;tj8is|s|ij|^ :::Kjiu@iii^^^j^Q^FK)l^;.^n^'ue^^^ '^-^ye.iesaav,:- ^3iA7s!o;^iiiii"i^iiii^iiWN0i^^idpWj -l^l''.1:"1.;.;',11'''':;^"-^'^ •:C0-^:,(^r:;:,;::;:::.,' ^efn6j^^iou^ijgi,!J:t|<te^pu|iyotie^^ ^^e^^ed;';;'t£:l''':.:^i;:^'^ :1;1:''.'.,1'','^, ''^3'fa;: ;:I^H^xgvK';^9i^^^?®(|tlIS-.•..^'^'i. ^B^y:^!%|ui|::^::.,::l^l'^:-^^^ •^j}s|^^TutBf|u|Uie^C?p||Nia|t|^^ 'j93i^©|i:|JSeu(j|i^'l|€s:n^^ i||ii|il|lli^^iiiS|||||ii|i^ ';^sy|tlE!;|^IJi||'i)|^iiG!||i%'J|9y|.^^^^^ ;f|»||pl||ij|i' ::e?|i6a5^i^i^(^:^8^i®AA:;,'^ ^tJe^^^ASeyoulet^^.'lQ^^ T';('©'B^n^li1"yw.'l'''/:':;^^^ ':tueMei|:3^,^,:-s^'Qi:-:-,-.:''|BAeiio^ ^o.l',:':.:El^yaiyy|dsa;;^:,.:';:-l^'Aj8^o^g1'^ :)46noa:4iy-i^ps!^yi|0^1^o'^Q^.-.,,t,^ :li!sfi^/e^':'^''-::^6:l!:'^;l^^i •^•£>-^'1- efnSjeg 43M1®!0^r^s^yW^6^^ ''NOQiii 'Ili'i:^f^v^^ ^^V^d uj^© ^Ljouedjesl^^^^^^^ '^ ' a0gjtiA^o^^^iee^l',Qg.'^o.qs,,;p3|^. 'ietUl^ o/^ftA9Q eAruri^ -^^ "SlN3CtN©cJ:S3y,: liNoitiiad Oi0^6iW^I'i^ MniS¥|jtTHWg^s|i^i^i©^ gSlBiSittl;il^^^ii^i||lii^?::f?|&-i: •^'l' •sam^^^M ^l Vtf.P.^No.29/2010 ^.; iii r: report, ^a; proceedin^ under^^^^^S jGhhattisgarh PaffGftay^^a^^<^ referred1:oas<the^^')wasre9isteredagainstthe^^^^^^ Respondent No.4, after registration of the matter under Section§40^92 ofthe Acl;, dlrected forissu^ cause noticeto the petitioner on 12.10.2Q09. The petitione appeared on 2€10.2G09^andfiled replyand the matterw re^ixed on 28;10;20©9.On!the said dafe, c^nselfo peti^Qner appeared befcre the concerned prayedfortimetofileacietaiiedreply.whlchw the said authbrity and the matter was fixed ^ Thereafter,therepiywasfiled.0n| 03.11.2009, t^ cOne^rnedauthoritydirectedforprodUGtionQfevjdencef^ the iOovemment side and the matter was fixedi on vanous other dates, byf n& evidence coujy be pjroduced. Mowever, even withQut ^etermlnrng th&^^^^^^^a impugned order ci|ted; 1S.12.2Q09^^^^y^ issued byrespQndent^No.^, saylng^hal^^^ petitloner was rtot.satisfaetory, therefor^, fhe^^^ directed lo deposif the amount of Rs.13J9^40/- pri^^^^^ 23.12.2009. It^salsodirectedthatfifltheamount^^i^ deposited in time, action shsli bie taken uncler Sectipn 32(2) 6ftheActand^hepetltionersha!!besgntto€1^1^^J aforesald amount sftail be recQvered N ari^^^^^^^o^ revenue..1,1'.; 1-';,::1',:.1:1'.;'^ ':l''rl.'':711':'l;'l:"11.1: :'1 ^r. Ratan 13usty, learneci counsel appearing on behajfofmepetitioherarguesfiatevenlwithQutdetem the procee^ing inifiateci uncler SectionS?40 ^ 92 o the impugned order date^ 15.12.1009 )(Annexure P/6) has beeh passed. He aiso a^ues that tNe ord^e^ proceeding wout^^shov^ grarrte^ toi;ttie petjtioner to coh^ underSecti&ns40&926ftheAct.i •^ W.P.(CVN6.29/2010 0n the other hand, Nr. Shashank Thakyr^^^^^ Pan^l l-ayyyerappea^ngonbettcilfofth&^^^^S^ 1 to 4 opposes ese arguments^a^ passed.fJ3y^esRqndentNp.4.7^,.^,;,.^1,- !Vlr. Akhilesh Kumar, learneci counsel appearing p behalf of respondent No.5 also QpRQses these^^^^^a^ andsupportstheorderpasseclbyresponclent|No.4. 1 haveheard leamedcounselfortheparties^atiength andlhave alsoperusedtherecordsof^ gection -40 of the Act, 1993 reiates to remQyat of office bearers of Panchayat. Siib-section (1^ pf Section 40 pFQvides tftat the^State Govemment or ^ authQHtymayaftersuch'enqyiryas!tmaya|em^fi at anytime, remove an offlce bearer ifheti^b 'miscQnduct'^in the discharge of hS^^^^^ Gontinuance in office 1$ yndesirable in^^ ^ pub!ic. It has also'been ^oviyed that^ removed ynless he hasbeen given an oppo cause vvhy heishoui^not be removed froiTthis office^^^W would include 'misc^ciue has also b expianation to sub^ectlon (1). The ^ CQntained in Section 40 would showtliatthe oppQrtyni show-eause shoyld be reai opportunity. IThe person proceeded against mustjnot pnl^ beto miscondys^, but^tie mi^ which ai^ sougM 16 be ased again^ charges, so that he may offer hls expianation^! thosemaferiais.ltshouldbekeptinmindthat|apersG^^w holds an ^lec^ed office has a rlghtto continut |n his unti!meexpiFyoftheterm.Theorderpassed?u/s^ reacftingaffeGts.asthefindingof^ ordersstofciebasedcasts^^^^a persbn.^ktng^R^iQyeraiJnN^ Section 40 along-wlth^ 1 ^%^MI^^^fJi^'^:^i^ •"'^'•^iiSB Vtf.P.(ClNo.29/2010 ,[. beundertaKen isaquasi^udicialaction.Therefore,itwasnot only desirabie but also essential that the^^^^^^ proceeding u/s 40 of the Act must given reasonabie and properbpportunjtytoshow-causetothepersonconcemed. In the present case, the prescribed authority {respondent No.4) had jssaed shoW cause notice on 12.10.2009 andreplytQthesaidnotice^^^w petitioner. Thereatter, the Btffihority fixed the matter for evidence ofthe|governmentservants,whichjshowsthatthe authority had caiied upon the State to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. Mowever, w^ evidence ofanywJtnessfromtheGovemmentsideandeven without taking evidence of the petitioner and without recordlng any finding regarding "misconduct" or any other fact,th8impygnedorclerctated 15.12.2009 l(Ann^xureP/6) has been issued. The order sheets of the ;pripceeding un^er Sections 40 & 92 oft the Act wouId show that prQper opportunity was not granted to the }3etitioRer be!;ore issuing the impughed orci6r ^ated 15.12.2009 ;(Annexure P/6), therefore,theprinciplesofnatyraljusttceare|Vtolated. Ror the foregoing reasQns, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.2009 (Annexure-P/6) is quashed, However, the respondents woutd be' free to take action against the petitioner in aec^rdance with taw after giving due opportunity of hearing to her. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha f^' Judge shyna 1