JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. — Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Divi¬sion Bench of the Orissa High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the pre-requisites for taking such action under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (in short the ‘Act’) were not satisfied and, therefore, the order of Collector, Jaipur, dated 3.6.2003 directing suspension of the respondent was illegal.

3. The factual background needs to be noted in brief :

The respondent was elected as Sarpanch of Neulapur Gram Panchayat in March, 2002. Purportedly acting on the basis of the allegations made by several villagers of that gram panchayat inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Collector, Jaipur. Several allegations were received by the Sub-Collector from the villagers as well as the member of the Legislative Assembly. By Order dated 17.5.2003 the Collector directed Sub-Collector to inquire into the allegations made against the respondent-Sarpanch. On 23.5.2003 the Sub-Collector conducted inquiry and recorded state¬ments of the complainants and thereafter the respondent. On 27.5.2003 Sub-Collector submitted his report concluding that the respondent had misused his power as Sarpanch and had failed to discharge his duties. Considering the report of the Sub-Collec¬tor, by order dated 3.6.2003 the Collector suspended the respond¬ent from the office of Sarpanch in purported exercise of powers conferred under Section 115(1) of the Act. The order was chal¬lenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition before the High Court. It was submitted that there was no material to show that the alleged acts of the respondent were wilful. The State Government filed its counter pointing out that serious allega¬tions were made which were inquired into by the Sub-Collector, who had categorically reported that there was truth in the alle¬gations clearly indicating abuses of powers, rights and privi¬leges vested in him (the respondent) and the acts were prejudi¬cial to the interest of inhabitants of Grama, and his further continuance would be detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat and inhabitants of the Grama. High Court referred to an earlier decision in Sanatan Jena v. Collector, Balasore and Anr., (2001 (I) OLR 206) where reference was made to two earlier deci¬sions i.e. Pradeep Kumar Karji v. Collector, Rayagada & Ors., (1998 (II) OLR 348) and Tarini Tripathy v. Collector, Koraput and Ors., (1986) (II) OLR 497). On the basis of the said judgment in Sanatan’s case (supra) the High Court held as follows :-

“This being the settled position of law and bare perusal of the report of the Sub-Collector, we are of the opinion that the same do not satisfy the pre-requisite conditions stipulated under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of suspension fails to withstand the judicial scrutiny which is in our considered opinion liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order passed in Annexure-I.”

4. Portion of the judgment in Sanatan’s case (supra), which was quoted by the High Court to conclude as above reads as follows:

“Suspension of an elected representative is indeed a drastic action and should not be taken recourse to cursorily and in a mechanical manner. This view was adopted in an earlier decision of this Court reported in 1998 (II) OLR 348, (Pradeep Kumar Karji v. Collector, Rayagada and others). Further while vesting the power upon the Executive to suspend an elected representative, the Legislature thought it just and prudent to provide certain safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of such power. As has been held in the decision of the Court reported in 1986 (II) OLR 497, Tarini Tripathy v. Collector, Koraput and Others), all the ingredients stipulated under Section 115(1) of the Act are cumu¬lative. Absence of any of the said ingredients would make the order of suspension vulnerable. In consonance with Section 115(1) of the Ac, the Co