C rp/C‘w EN THE HZEG‘E'i CGUR’E 012‘ JUDICA‘iUhE AT BELASPUR( C“ (3'. ) Ha moiig 0’7 o~£ 2001 BETWEEN I/ m wA liansa Ram aged about 29 year$g S/oa $amaru. Sahish, Resident or: village salkhan, ‘P'usg Seorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa» P13 TI TIONEE€ 9&3 Thc State of. C‘nkmttiésgarh, through the Secretary Department of Panchayat, Mantralay Bax. Building Raipur The Colle ctor , J‘abj gir~Champa, District Janjgir—Champao T 3o Kalindram, Up Sarpanchg G3: am P anchay at J alkhan , T ahsil N awagarh District Janj gir. Champaa ‘Rtgsymmx as“ ,w’i» WRIT PETITEDN UN‘i'EJIE ExRTiCLEZS 226/227 OF 'ixu: CONETETUTIOEE OF INDIA / w ) Inbzmiws > , r v : " z :3 ‘ 1 « w .gn,» ma 311W W W m $mra1n=vW 1i fig”! Thug? $ 311%? m :3 . i ‘km ) ’ Q ' g ‘ ; iél - io ~ gob} ‘ . w; ,7 ) ShriAwadh Tripathi learned counselfor thepetitianer. MnDeep Kesharjwgni learnedkanel lawyerfor the State. The petitioner while serving als Smpanch was suspended by order dated 25.1.2001. The law requires th t such order ofsuspension issued by S.D.0 has to be confirmed by the S e within 90 days. Ihe period of 90 days of suspension expired without ny confirmationfrom the Competent ; § State Authority. Hence the order of uspension was revoked on 7.6.2001 by the S.D.0. Thereafterfor the sec dd time on 19. 7.2001 another order ofsuspension was issued in respect fthe same allegations. The offence alleged is under section 376 ofthe I dian Penal Code. According to Shri Kesharwani,the second order ofsuspension issued on 19. 7.2001 is a valid one inasmuch as the said order ofs pension was issued after the charge against the writpetitionir. Ihe matter is‘ pending before wasframed now pending the Additional Sessions Judge Janjg . Even in'respect ofsecond order of suspension no order of conjirmati n has been issued till date. It is contended that in fact the earlier o er ofsuspension was illegal. If the submission is correct then somewhere should be held som one responsibleAs a matter of fact, he consequence of the order of and cbmpletely the petitioner only. He. suspension was sufferedfully by petitioner only. can not be made to suffer time and again for the fault of certain State authorities. ‘ Shri Kesharwani submits th once the charge has been framed under section 376 the Indian Pen l be allowed to of Code,no person can hold the post ofSarpanch. In the pr ent case, unfortunately what shduld been done,by the authority,was not done. have competent l l —-2 Wmmma) GRPRJ FS/311~1l2001-50,000.‘ mm ‘ ‘ m WaW W1WR a; Wm mm ‘ a In my view the arder of suspension issued 0n 19.7.2001 ufter the earlief’ order of suspension issued on 25.11.2001 was revoked,is not only unfair M unreasonable also. l In the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing Sh e Awadh learned counsel the well‘as ' Tripathi for petitioner as .Qtri Deegag‘ ”i Kesharwani learned counsel for the State ,this petition is allowed The impugned order ofsuspension issuedfor the second time on 19. 7.2001 by the SDO is set-aside.