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.

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