. ( \\ ^-.-, t-^ ^t^ y ^mss'w IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P. (C) N0 ^[00 /2011 Hiranbai Chandra, Aged about 30 years, W/o- Shri Gajadhar Chandra, Sarpanch Gram Panchayar-Singra, Janpad Panchayat-Malkharouda, R/o- Village- Singra, P.S.&Tehsil-Malkharouda, Distt.:- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS O.B. s...-rf"a: ^^•^? ^':"fS^y'"'^... ^;...."^ ^.T:....---'^^ ^e6--"" O^^ da" /l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, D.K.S.Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, C.G. , 2\ Collector, Janjgir-Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. / 3. Sub-Divisibnal Officer (Revenue), Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1»«""N<- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0.4100 OF 2011 PETITIONER Hiranbai Chandra Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : hlon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 2nd day of November, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that the impugned suspension order dated 18-6-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed under Section 39 (1) ofthe Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1993") was bad in law, as the pre-conditiori before issue of the impugned order is to issue a show cause notice with charge sheet under the provisions of Section 40 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993, 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, relying on the averment made in para 9 ofthe reply dated 26-8-2011, submits that indisputably no notice along with charge sheet was is?ued against the petitioner. However, prima facie, it was found that there were certain serious irregularities committed by the office bearers of the Gram Panchayat. 4. Sections 39 (1) (b) &40 (1) ofthe Adhiniyam, 1993.read as under.: , "39. Suspension of office bearer of Panchayat.—(1) The prescribed authority may suspend from office any office bearer— XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (b) On whom, show cause notice along with charge sheet under this Act, has been served for removal from office." ^.^'w\ !/ |,^^fe. 1 t ^ JV '%.., Gowri 40. Removal of office bearers of Panchayat.—(1)The State Government or the prescribed authority may after such enquiry as it may deem fit to make at any time, remove an office bearer— (a) if he has, been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties: or (b) if his continuance in office is undesirable in the interest of the public: Provided that no person shall be removed unless he has been given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed from his office." In view of the above, the impugned order, at this stage, wherein the Sub Divisional Officer has noticed, prima facie, irregularities, but have not issued any show cause notice or charge sheet under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, passed under Section 39 (1) (b) would not survive. In the result, the impugned order dated 18-6-2011 is quashed and accordingly the petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge