Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Nandini Meher – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
ORDER :
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
1. Heard Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the State.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order as at Annexure-1 of opposite party No.2 on the grounds stated therein.
3. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected representative but she has been placed under suspension by the order of opposite par.t2y No dated 19th March, 2025. The further submission is that no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner, hence, therefore, such an order of suspension is not legally tenable.
4. The contention is that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the order of suspension against the petitioner and in a mechanical manner, opposite party No.2 passed the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 and hence, the same is liable to be interfered with. In support of such contention, Mr. Nanda, learned counsel relies on orders of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.9149 and 16166 of 2025 dated 15th July, 2025 and 19th June, 2025 respectively besides the case laws, such as Nutan, Kumar Rout Vs. State of Orissa and others 111 (2011) CLT 345, Amiya Kuma
Procedural fairness requires authorities to provide reasons when suspending elected representatives; mechanical actions without due justification are invalid.
The court ruled that the suspension of an elected Sarpanch was unjustified as the conditions for suspension were not met, emphasizing the distinction between elected representatives and public servan....
An elected representative cannot be placed under suspension in a routine manner and the government must satisfy itself that the charges are of a grave nature and that the continuation of the incumben....
Point of law: power of suspension may be invoked by the State Government, if the proceedings have been commenced for removal of a member as provided under subsection (1) of Section 39 of the Act of 2....
Suspension orders must adhere to procedural requirements and be reviewed within 90 days; authority for disciplinary actions against Panchayat Executive Officers rests with local Gram Panchayats, not ....
The court affirmed that the State Government can suspend a Sarpanch based on inquiry initiation, even without a preliminary report, provided the member is given an opportunity to explain.
Suspension of an elected official under ongoing criminal proceedings is valid, yet procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries must be maintained—misconduct finding quashed for lack of hearing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
