The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of conducting an enquiry and providing an opportunity to show cause before removing an office bearer under Section 40(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiiyam, 1993.

ORDER :

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 25.9.2023 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer (R) -cum- Prescribed Authority has passed the order of removal of the petitioer from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 40 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiiyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993')

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected sarpanch of village Panchayat Malda, Janpad Panchayat Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara. Petitioner was surprised to know that respondent No.3 has passed an order of her removal from the post of Sarpanch without issuing any show-cause notice or giving opportunity of hearing to her. He contended that under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 the office bearer can be removed only after enquiry to be conducted by the Prescribed Authority and before passing order of removal, the office bearer has to be given an opportunity to show cause as to why he or she be not removed. No such proceeding is drawn before passing the order impugned. He contended that from the documents placed on record it is apparent that based on newspaper report relating to death of 3 to 4 cattle kept in the building of gram panchayat, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by respondent No.4, who issued notice to the petitioner to submit her explanation. Petitioner submitted her explanation/reply. Based on report submitted by respondent No.4, the order impugned, Annexure P-1 is passed, which is per se illegal and not sustainable. He submits that enquiry as contemplated under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 is mandatory, the order of removal of petitioner is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

3. Learned State Counsel would submit that on coming to know about the death of 3-4 cattle from newspaper report, the Prescribed Authority took cognizance of the same, constituted a team to enquire into, which is headed by respondent No.4. The said team submitted its report and based on the enquiry report, the order impugned is passed and therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned is passed without there being any material against the petitioner or without affording him opportunity of hearing.

4. On a query being put by this Court to the learned State Counsel as to what proceeding was drawn by respondent No.3 before passing the impugned order, she submits that along with reply entire proceedings drawn by the Sub Divisional Officer is filed and perusal of which would show that respondent No.3 directed for constitution of a team for conducting enquiry. The Enquiry Officer issued notice to the petitioner upon which petitioner submitted reply and based on the enquiry report dated 24.9.2023 & 25.9.2023, the order impugned is passed. However, she fairly submits that from the proceedings placed before this Court it is not reflecting that any case is registered against the petitioner. She herself examined record of the proceeding but she did not find any order sheet showing registration of case against the petitioner. She submits that whatever documents available in this regard have been filed along with reply.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that pursuant to the direction issued by respondent No.3, respondent No.4 along with other members initiated the enquiry, issued show-cause notice to the petitioner and others and based on reply submitted by the petitioner and other persons, submitted the report before the respondent No.3 and thereby complied with the direction issued by respondent No.3. He further submits that pursuant to the direction issued by respondent No.3, the enquiry was conducted by the officials of Janpad Panchayat and the report was forwarded to respondent No.3 under the signature of respondent No.4.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record.

7. In view of submission made by learned counsel for respective parties, in particular submission made by learned