Back
1998 Supreme(MP) 160
1999 (1) JLJ 255
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.
Harishankar Patel v. State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 4049 of 1995; Decided on 20.2.1998.
H.B. Agrawal for petitioner;
S.N. Khare for State.
Headnote:(1) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- Ss. 39 and 40 -- notice saying "show cause as to why action under S. 39 and S. 40 should not be taken" -- is not a notice as required under S. 40. W.P. No. 4176/97 relied on. Affirmed in 1999(1) Vidhi Bhaswar 57. [Para 7
(2) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- Ss. 40 and 39 (1) (b) -show cause notice for removal from office -- is contemplated under S. 40 -- S. 39 (1) (b) only says about issuance of notice. Affirmed in 1999(1) Vidhi Bhaswar 57. [Para 8
(3) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 39(1) (b) -- combined show cause notice accompanied with articles of charge -- substantial compliance of provision. W.P. No. 4937/96 relied on. Affirmed in 1999(1) Vidhi Bhaswar 57. [Para 9
(4) Statute -- dictionaries are not dictates of statute -- sometimes aid is taken from them for finding out meaning which may advance purpose of provision of law. [Para 10
(5) Law -- dictionaries are not dictates of statute -- sometimes aid is taken from them for finding out meaning which may advance purpose of provision of law. [Para 10
(6) Words and Phrases -- word "alongwith" -- means "in company with", "together with" and "in conjunction with". Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I 3rd Edn. page 52 relied on. [Para 10
(7) Words and Phrases -- word "along" -- means whether "within" or "by the side of". Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I 3rd Edn. page 52 relied on. [Para 10
(8) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- Ss. 39(1)(b) and 40 -object behind S. 39 (1) (b) -- is to avoid arbitrariness in the action of authorities -- show cause notice is required to be given for removal by having recourse of S. 40 -- this is condition precedent for exercising powers under S. 39(1). Affirmed in 1999(1) Vidhi Bhaswar‘ 57. [Para 11
(9) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 39(2) -- confirmation order of suspension -- has to be passed by State Government within 90 days -delinquent officer need not be served with such order
of confirmation. Affirmed in 1999(1) Vidhi Bhaswar 57. [Para 13
¼1½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 39 rFkk 40 && **dkj.k crkvks fd /kkjk 39 rFkk 40 ds v/khu dkjjokbZ D;ksa u dh tk,** ,slk dFku drjs gq, lwpuk && /kkjk 40 ds v/khu visf{kr lwpuk ugha gSA fjV ;kfpdkvksa Ø- 4176@97 voyafcrA 1999¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 57 }kjk vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼2½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 40 rFkk 39¼1½¼[k½ && in ls gVk, tkus ds fy, lwpuk && /kkjk 40 ds v/khu vuq/;kr gS && /kkjk 31¼1½¼[k½ esa dsoy lwpuk tkjh fd, tkus ds ckjs esa dgk x;k gSA 1999¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 57 }kjk vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼3½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 39¼1½¼[k½ && vkjksi dh enksa ds lkFk la;qDr dkj.k crkvks lwpuk && mica/k dk lkjoku vuqikyu gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 4937@96 voyafcrA 1999¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 57 }kjk vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼4½ dkuwu && ‘‘kCndks‘k] dkuwu ds vkns‘k ugha gS && rFkkfi] fof/k ds mica/k dk iz;kstu vxzlj djus okys vFkZ izkIr djus ds fy, dHkh&dHkh muls lgk;rk yh tkrh gSA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼5½ fof/k && ‘‘kCndks‘k] dkuwu ds vkns‘k ugha gS && rFkkfi] fof/k ds mica/k dk iz;kstu vxzlj djus okys vFkZ izkIr djus ds fy, dHkh&dHkh muls lgk;rk yh tkrh gSA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼6½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn **ds lkFk (along with) && vFkZ gS] **laxfr esa (in company with)**] **blds lkFk&lkFk (together with)** rFkk ds lkFk la;qDr (in conjunction with)**A ‘kksVZj vkDlQksMZ bafXy‘k fMD‘kujh] ftYn 1] r`rh; laLdj.k i`"B 52 voayfcrA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼7½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ds **lkFk (along with) && vFkZ gS] **Hkhrj (within)** vFkok **dh cxy (by the side of)**A ‘kksVZj vkDlQksMZ bafXy‘k fMD‘kujh] ftYn 1] r`rh; laLdj.k i`"B 52 voayfcrA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼8½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 39¼1½¼[k½ && rFkk 40 && /kkjk 39¼1½¼[k½ ds ihNs mÌs‘; && izkf/kdkfj;ksa dh dkjjokbZ ls euekusiu dk ifjlj djuk gS && dkj.k crkvks lwpuk fn;k tkuk /kkjk 40 dk vkJ; ys dj gVk, tkus ds fy, visf{kr gS && /kkjk 39¼1½ ds v/khu ‘kfDr;k¡ iz;qDr fd, tkus ds fy, ;g iwoZ ‘krZ gSA 1999¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 57 }kjk vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼9½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 39¼2½ && fuyacu dh iqf"V dk vkns‘k && jkT; ljdkj }kjk 90 fnu dk Hkhrj ikfjr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && vipkjh in/kkjh dks ,sls iqf"V ds vkns‘k dh rkehy vko‘;d ughaA 1999¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 57 }kjk vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 13À
1. The petitioner was suspended from the office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mohkaputka, Block and Tahsil Saraipali, District Raipur in exercise of the power under section 39 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mahasamund dated 17.7.1995. This order has been given challenge by means of the present petition seeking the relief for setting aside the show cause notice dated 19.4.95 (Annexure P/4) and the order of suspension dated 17.7.95 (Annexure P/6).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri H.B. Agrawal and the learned State counsel, Shri S.N. Khare.
3. Counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged and the petition is being finally disposed of.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under section 39 of the Act the condition precedent for exercise of the power for suspension is the service of notice along with the charge-sheet to show cause for the removal from the office and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of law has not been satisfied and as such the impugned order suffers from infirmity.
5. Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 39 of the Act, which is relevant in the case, is extracted as below :
"(b) who has been served with a notice along with a charge sheet to show cause under this Act, for his removal from the office."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner built-up his submission on words "served with a notice alongwith a charge sheet" as mentioned in Clause (b) of Section 39(1) of the Act. According to him, word "along with" means accompanied by, but it is to be a separate document and in the present case the charge sheet and the show cause notice is one composite document and so is the case of the respondents that it is a composite document. The question for consideration as cropped up is that as to what meaning is to given to the phrase as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ratan Singh Yadav v. State of M.P. and 3 others given in writ petition No. 4176/97 dated 2.11.97. That was also a case of suspension under Sections 39 and 40 of the Act. In that case it has been observed by the learned Judge that to clothe the authority with powers to suspend a person, the authority must see that the person proposed to be suspended has been served with a notice along with charge sheet to show cause for his removal from the office. The charge-sheet and the show cause notice, for his removal from office, are required to be served under Section 40 of the Act which would provide a foundation in favour of the competent authority/prescribed authority that during the currency of the notice and the enquiry such person should not continue in office. In that case, as it appears from the decision relied on, Annexure P/2 the show cause notice which was not issued either under Section 39 or Section 40 of the Act and for this the reason as has been given in the judgment is that "It says that the petitioner should show cause as to why action under Section 39 and 40 be not taken against him." On the above facts, the Court observed that "Section 40 talks of show cause notice as to why he should not be removed from his office. Accordingly, it was not a show cause notice alongwith the charge sheet as contemplated under Section 40 of the Act.
8. Section 39 of the Act does not require any show cause notice for suspension. This show cause notice for removal from the office is contemplated under Section 40 of the Act and Clause (b) of Section 39(1) of the Act only says about issuance of notice alongwith a charge-sheet to show cause why the person be not removed from the office.
9. Learned State counsel submitted that in the present case the show cause notice and the charge sheet as contemplated u/S. 40 of the Act is a composite one and the condition for action und
