IMPORTANT POINT
The removal of an elected office-bearer must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair opportunity to defend against allegations.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by respondent No. 2/Commissioner in Revision Case No. 1-A-89/2021-22 whereby appeal filed by respondent No. 5/Sarpanch has been allowed setting aside the order passed by respondent No. 4/Sub Divisional Officer (R) and respondent No. 3/Collector removing respondent No. 5 from the post of Sarpanch and disqualifying her to contest election for a period of 6 years.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner, an elected Member of Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda, Village Bundeli District Janjgir Champa filed a complaint before respondent No. 3/Collector on 31.07.2020 against respondent No. 5/Sarpanch and respondent No. 6/Secretary of the Gram Panchayat-Bundeli alleging that respondents No. 5 & 6 are misusing their power, extended undue advantage to husband of respondent No. 5/Sarpanch, misappropriated the fund allotted to Gram Panchayat and prayed for removal of Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat invoking provision under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “Adhiniyam 1993”). Upon receiving complaint, respondent No. 3/Collector directed respondent No. 4/Sub Divisional Officer (R) to conduct an inquiry in the matter. Thereafter, a report was called by respondent No. 4 from the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat Malkharoda, who, in turn, submitted report stating that Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat illegally withdrew the funds to the tune of Rs.6,20,080/-. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam 1993 was registered and a show cause notice along with the charge sheet were issued by respondent No. 4 to respondents No. 5 & 6, reply to which was submitted by respondent No. 5. Statements of complainant and other witnesses were recorded wherein they stated that amount to the tune of Rs.25,000/- was illegally withdrawn for husband of respondent No. 5/Sarpanch misusing the power. Vide order dated 25.06.2021, respondent No. 4/Sub Divisional Officer (R), the Prescribed Authority, finding serious irregularities committed in discharging the duties of the Sarpanch, her conduct to be against public interest, removed her from the post of Sarpanch invoking provision under Section 40 (1) (a) of the Adhiniyam 1993 and also disqualified her under sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Act for a period of 6 years to contest election and matter was forwarded to office of Jila Panchyat Janjgir Champa for taking necessary action against Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The said order was put to challenge before the respondent No. 3/Collector in an appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2021 affirming the order of removal of private respondents. Order passed by the Collector was further challenged in revision by respondent No. 5 before the Commissioner, Bilaspur and the revisional authority allowed the revision, set aside the order of Collector on the ground that the respondent No. 5 was not provided proper opportunity to cross-examine the witness. It is this order of Commissioner which is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed contrary to provision of the Adhiniyam 1993 as also Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to “Rules of 1995”). It is contended that the impugned order is passed by the Commissioner observing that procedure prescribed under the Adhiniyam 1993 has not been duly followed as the final order has not been passed within 90 days of the issuance of show-cause notice to respondents No. 5 & 6 ; no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to respondent No. 5 as she was not given opportunity to examine witnesses in her support, which is against the principles of natural justice. It is for the first time in the revision preferred by respondent No. 5 ground of limitation as also the ground of not a