‘ A pLg IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR ' / g 213W Writ Petition 1 C ) No.1035/2008 PETITIONER Smt. Savitri Goswami, aged about 50 years, w/o Shri Trilochan Goswami, R/o Village and Post Khaija, Tahsil Baloda, Distt. Janjg'r Champa. Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaxy, Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. (CG) RESPONDENTS The Additional Couector, Janjgir Champa Sub-Divisional OEcer (Revenue), Distt. Janjgir Champa Smt. Babita Pan‘har, aged about 20 years, W/o Netram, R/o Village Khaija, ‘ Tahsil Baloda, Distt‘ Janjgir Champa PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Aggearanc‘e : Shn' Parag Kotecha, Counsel for the petitioner. Shn‘ Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate, for the State} respondents no. 1 to 3. Shn‘ Bharat Rajput, counsel for respondent No.4 on Caveat petition filed on today‘ ORAL ORDER 118.02.20081 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard nually, with the consent of all the panties. Respondent no.4 SmtBabita ‘Parihar was the elected Swpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khaija, Tahsjl Boloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa. She was suspended by an onier dated 24.9.2007 (Annexule P-2) passed by the Sub—Divisional 0E1cer, Janjgir on account ofiraming ofcharges u/ ss 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A & 409 of I.P.C., against her in Criminal Case No.607/ 2007 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir. It appears that after her suspension, she filed an appeal before the Addl. Caneeior, Janjgix, vide Appeal Case No.2/A-89(15)/2007-2008 and 2 W.P.(C) No.1035/2008 in the said appeal, the Addl. Collector, Janjgir Champa passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2007 and stayed the order of suspension passed on 24.9.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Additional Collector (Annexure P-8) is wholly Without jurisdiction and is a nullity, mstly because after passing of the order of suspension, the matter was to be referred to he State Governmet under sub- t n section (2) of Section 39 and in pite of reerring the matter to the s f State Government, the atter was taken up in appeal and stay m was granted and secondly that one Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Additional Collector, who has passed the order in appea is the same person l who has passed the suspension order on 24.9.27, therefo, in 00 re all fairness, even in a dinerent capacity, he would not have enterined the appeal tiled against his own order before him. ta On the other hand, learned counse for the respondent l No.4 supports the impugned order passed by the Addl. Collector, I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition Section 39(1) of Panchayat Raj Adhim'yam 1993 reads as under: 39. Suspension of ome bearer of Panchayat.- (1) c The prescribed authority may suspend from ohice any bearer (a) against whom charges have been framed in any criminal proceedings under Chapter V—A.VI. IX-A, X, XII, Secn'on 302, 303, 304—3, 305, 306, 312 to 318, 366-A, 366vB, 373 to 377 of Chapter XVI, section 395 to 398, 408, 409, 458 to 460 of Chapter XVII and chapter XVIII or’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 stud and drugs 1 (suppression of immoral traffic in women and children, p protecn'on of civil rights and Prevention of Corruption); . 3 @ W.P.(C) No. 1035/2003 Saction 39(2) provides that the order of suspension under sub-section (1) shall be reported to the State Government Within a pen‘od of 10 days a11d shall be subject to such onlers as the State Government may deem ht to pass. It further provides that if the order of suspension is not condrmed by the state Government within a period of 9O days n‘om the date of receipt of such report it shall be deemed to have been vacated. A bare perusal of these two sub-sections of section 39 would make it clear that after passing of the order of suspension under sub—secn‘on (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 and there is hardly any room for any authority to side track the provisions of sub-section (2) and to begin with the provisions of appeal etc., against such order passed under sub—section (1) of section 39. The provisions of sub— section (2) would show that the Legislature in all its wisdom has used the word like “sh ” in this sub-section making the provision of reporting the order of suspension to the State Government imperative and further this sub—section also provides that if the Government does not confirm the order of suspension Within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of such report, the order shall be deemed to have vacated. Therefore, in all propriety, if the order of suspension was passed by the concerned authority under sub-section (1) of section 39 that has to be reported to the Government within the stipulated period which has not been done in this case and lay-passing the aforesaid provision the appeal was entertained by the Addl. Collector and the order impugned was stayed. It is surprising that Mr. ’I‘iwari (Addl. Collector) himself was the person who has passed the order of suspension dated 24.9.2007 in the capacity of Sub-Divisional Officer and later he 4 W.P.(C! No.1035/2008 himself, as an appellate authority, has entertained the appeal preferred against the said Older and has stayed the etfect and operation of that order by the impugned order dated 30.1 1.2007 In the facts and circumstances of'this case, the impugned order dated 30. 11.2007 cannot be sustained and the same has to be quashed. Moreover, the grounds taken for staying the operation of the suspension order are also not‘in accordance with law. The V appellate authority has said that since a revision has been filed against the order of hauling of charges before the Sessions Judge, therefore, he is staying the operation of the order whereas neither the effect and operation of framing ofcharges have been stayed by the Sessions Judge nor the Sessions Judge has quashed the framing of charges 11'11 date. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impu§1ed order dated 30. 11.2007 passed by the Addl. Collector in Appeal Case No.2/A-89(15)/2007—2008 is hereby quashed. The caveat petition filed by respondent no.4 be treated as disposed of. x There shall be no order as to costsnl Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao