1. Removal of an elected Sarpanch from office following allegations of delay in executing development projects under a rural industrial scheme. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1090
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Sonam Lakra – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12326 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7279 of 2024)
Decided On : 14-11-2024
Important Points
The removal of an elected Sarpanch without due process and adherence to natural justice principles is impermissible, highlighting the need for respect towards elected representatives.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Administration
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 - Removal of elected Sarpanch - Administrative imperiousness led to unjust removal of a dedicated elected representative - The Work Order was served after the stipulated period, and the appellant was denied the opportunity to be heard - The High Court's dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds was improper. (Paras 8, 16, 17)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice were violated as the appellant was not given a fair chance to present her case, leading to her wrongful removal. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a young elected Sarpanch, faced unjust removal due to bureaucratic high-handedness and unfounded allegations regarding project delays, despite her efforts for village development.
Findings of Court:
The court reinstated the appellant as Sarpanch, quashing the orders of removal and directing the State to pay her costs for the harassment faced.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the removal of an elected representative and the adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for administrative authorities to respect the autonomy of elected representatives and the importance of following due process in administrative actions.
Result: The appeal was allowed, reinstating the appellant and awarding costs.
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice were violated as the appellant was not given a fair chance to present her case, leading to her wrongful removal. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a young elected Sarpanch, faced unjust removal due to bureaucratic high-handedness and unfounded allegations regarding project delays, despite her efforts for village development.
Findings of Court:
The court reinstated the appellant as Sarpanch, quashing the orders of removal and directing the State to pay her costs for the harassment faced.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the removal of an elected representative and the adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for administrative authorities to respect the autonomy of elected representatives and the importance of following due process in administrative actions.
Result: The appeal was allowed, reinstating the appellant and awarding costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Lave Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sharadprakash Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, D.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Mr. Kshitiz Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Kritika Yadav, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Lave Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sharadprakash Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, D.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Mr. Kshitiz Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Kritika Yadav, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. State contends that due process under the Panchayat Raj Act was followed and the elected representative failed to submit required work completion reports. (Para 6 )
3. The removal was based on baseless allegations, lacked adherence to natural justice, and reflected a colonial mindset treating elected representatives as subordinate to bureaucrats. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. High Courts under Article 226 may entertain writ petitions despite alternative remedies where the Executive blatantly misuses power to undermine democratic values. (Para 16 )
5. Impugned removal orders quashed, appellant reinstated as Sarpanch, and costs awarded with directions for an inquiry against delinquent officials. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Can an elected representative be removed from office without a fair hearing?
No. The court held that denying the fundamental opportunity to be heard and disregarding principles of natural justice in the removal of an elected representative constitutes a misuse of administrative authority. (Para 11 )
7. Can a Sarpanch be held solely responsible for delays in construction projects involving multiple technical stakeholders?
No. Since construction projects require coordinated efforts from engineers, contractors, and agencies, holding the Sarpanch solely accountable without evidence of specific failure in her elected duties is unjustified. (Para 13 )
8. Does the existence of an alternative remedy bar a High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226?
Not necessarily. The High Court has vast discretion to entertain writ petitions even if alternative remedies exist, particularly when the Executive has blatantly misused power to weaken grassroots democratic values. (Para 16 )
9. What is the legal distinction between an elected public representative and a selected public servant regarding administrative supervision?
Elected representatives possess democratic legitimacy and should not be treated as subordinates to bureaucrats. Administrative supervisory power cannot be used to equate elected representatives with civil servants to encroach upon their autonomy. (Para 12 )
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. The appellant in this case is a 27yearold woman, with a seemingly strong commitment towards improving democracy at the grassroots level. Motivated by this vision, she contested the elections in 2020 for the position of Sarpanch of the Sajbahar Gram Panchayat in District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, the village that she belongs to. She was subsequently declared elected with a substantial margin.
3. Having assumed the office of Sarpanch, the appellant undertook several measures towards development of the village, with the objective of bettering the quality of lives of its inhabitants. Pursuantly, after significant effort by the appellant, the Zila Panchayat, Jashpur sanctioned 10 construction projects for the Sajbahar village under the aegis of the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Industrial Park Scheme (RIPA). These construction works involved the development of industrial infrastructure, along with amenities such as roads and schools, which would not only improve the wellbeing of the villagers but also aid in making the village economically self-sufficient. However, the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat, despite lacking technical expertise regarding the time required for such projects, issued a Work Order on 16.12.2022, mandating completion of the development works within the limited duration of three months. This order for reasons best known to the Chief Executive Officer was belatedly served to the Gram Panchayat on 21.03.2023, which ironically marked the end of the stipulated three-month period since the date of issuance of the work order.
4. Subsequently, the delay in execution was unjustly attributed to the appellant, resulting in a Show-Cause Notice issued on 26.05.2023, followed by a chargesheet. In her response, the appellant clarified that there was no delay in the construction work. Despite her explanation, bureaucratic high handedness led to her removal from office on 18.01.2024.
5. Aggrieved, the appellant sought relief from higher authorities and the High Court but faced rejection at every turn. Undeterred, she initiated the present proceedings. On 05.04.2024, this Court stayed the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pharsabahar, and the High Court, reinstating the appellant as Sarpanch and directing that she be allowed to perform her duties without any obstruction.
6. The respondent-State of Chhattisgarh has filed a counter-affidavit, containing mechanical contentions that “sufficient opportunity was afforded to the appellant to present her case” and that an inquiry was conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. The State further alleges that the appellant failed to submit the Work Completion Reports on five occasions.
7. Be that as it may, we have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.
8. This appears to be a classic case of administrative imperiousness, resulting in the removal of an elected Sarpanch—a young woman dedicated to serving her remote village in Chhattisgarh. Rather than recognizing her commitment and supporting her vigor for the village's development, the authorities unjustly penalized her for baseless and unwarranted reasons.
9. A prima facie examination of the case trajectory reveals a calculated effort by members of the Gram Panchayat, hand in glove with administrative authorities, to obstruct the appellant’s initiatives. These individuals sought to undermine her credibility with unfounded accusations of misconduct and, when these stratagems failed, resorted to sabotaging development projects. This concerted campaign ultimately led to her unjust removal as the duly elected Sarpanch. It is cause for concern that at every step, the appellant faced relentless obstacles and received little to no support in her endeavors.
10. The first instance of hindrance in this appeal can be pinpointed to the Work
