IMPORTANT POINT
Removal of elected officials must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair opportunity to defend against charges.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner/respondent No. 3 whereby revision filed by petitioner came to be dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was an elected Sarpanch. She was elected in the year 2020. Based on some complaint, an inquiry was conducted against her, inquiry report was submitted on 18.05.2022 opining that the petitioner has committed financial irregularities in discharging her official duties. Based on the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to her on 09.06.2022 to which she submitted reply on 20.07.2022. Sub Divisional Officer only on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner has passed the order on 21.09.2022 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1993”) and further passed the order for recovery of the amount after evaluating all the works done by her. He contended that the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority without following due procedure of law as provided under Section 40 of the Act of 1993 i.e. issuing charge memo along with supporting documents, providing opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, has passed an order, therefore, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is bad in law. Petitioner aggrieved with order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Prescribed Authority has preferred an appeal as provided under Rule 3 of the Panchayat Raj (Appeal & Revisions) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1995”) before the Collector which came to be dismissed and thereafter the revision application submitted under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995 also came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Appellate and Revisional Authority have not considered the ground raised in the appeal and revision that the order of removal passed under Section 40 of the Act of 1993 is in violation of the principles of natural justice as it was passed without following due procedure of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamti Bai vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WPC No. 2675 of 2017, decided on 11.12.2017.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that after receipt of inquiry report, petitioner was served with show cause notice mentioning the notice to be issued under Section 40 (1) (c) of the Act of 1993, the petitioner submitted reply and only thereafter the order has been passed and, therefore, there is compliance of the procedure provided under Section 40 of the Act of 1993. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 also supports the submission of learned counsel for the State. Similar submission is made by learned counsel for the respondents No. 6 & 7 also.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Kapatbahri, Janpad Panchayat- Batauli. A complaint was filed by respondent No. 6 against the petitioner, before respondent No. 4/Sub Divisional Officer alleging that the petitioner has committed financial irregularities during her tenure as Sarpanch and tried to provide financial benefit to her husband. After receipt of complaint, statements of witnesses were recorded. A report was called by respondent No. 4 from the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat, Batauli, who, in turn, submitted report stating that allegation made against the Sarpanch was found to be proved. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 40 of the Act of 1993 was registered and a show cause notice was