1. The interesting question which arises in this writ appeal is whether a Sarpanch or other office bearers of the Gram Panchayat who have been suspended by the Prescribed Authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) (for short 'S.D.O.') can approach this Court directly or should they first file an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Collector in terms of Rule 3 of Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Appellant/Petitioner Smt. Ramkali Raj was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Lalpur, Tahsil Podiuproda, District Korba. A complaint was made against her and a notice was issued to her under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') as to why she be not removed from the office of the Sarpanch. The proceedings were going on and on 13.10.2016, the Appellant/Petitioner was not present and on that date the S.D.O. passed an order suspending the Appellant till further orders. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed a writ petition before this Court. The Learned Single Judge held that the Appellant has an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Collector by filing an appeal in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules and hence rejected the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Shri Vivek Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to two Judgments/Orders, the first is delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 1035 of 2008, decided on 18.2.2008 (Smt. Savitri Goswami v. State of C.G. & Others) reported in 2008 (2) C.G.L.J. 397. In that case the suspended Sarpanch filed an appeal before the Collector. It appears that Mr. Tiwari who was the S.D.O. who passed the order of suspension, in the meantime got promoted and was holding the charge of Additional Collector. He heard the appeal against his own order and stayed the said order. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that Mr. Tiwari had no business to hear and entertain the appeal against his own order. After referring Section 39 (1) of the Adhiniyam made following observations:

"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-section (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 "shall" in this sub-section, making the provision of reporting the order of suspension to the State Government imperative and further this subsection 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 by-passing the aforesaid provision the appeal was entertained by the Addl. Collector and the order impugned was stayed."

In the second order a learned Single Judge has entertained the petition against order of suspension and stayed the same.

4. It is contended by Shri Vivek Shrivastava that these orders indicates that no appeal lies against the order of suspension and it is only on the administrative side that the Collector can confirm or set aside t