The removal of elected office-bearers requires adherence to principles of natural justice and statutory enquiry provisions.

1. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khapridarbar. A complaint was made that on the basis of forged muster roll, the petitioner as Sarpanch has withdrawn certain amount. That complaint was got enquired into by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Khairagarh through the Tahsildar, Chhuikhadan and report was asked for which was submitted by the Tahsildar on 16-6-2016 and based upon the said report, a regular revenue case was registered by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) under S.40(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, 'the Act of 1993'). Thereafter, a show - cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was replied and after reply is filed, the case was heard and order for removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch was passed on 15-12-2016 holding that she has committed misconduct in performance of her duty as she has withdrawn amount giving forged names and attendance of 72 persons and thereby she has committed financial irregularity and as such, her continuance on the said post is undesirable in the interest of public under S.40(1)(b) of the Act of 1993.

2. The petitioner assailed the order of removal before the Collector unsuccessfully and again in second challenge, she also remained unsuccessful leading to filing of this writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer committed grave illegality in relying upon the ex parte enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar in which the petitioner has been held to be guilty of committing financial irregularity without making any enquiry as contemplated under S.40(1) of the Act of 1993 and unless enquiry is made by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided in proviso to S.40(1) of the Act of 1993, she cannot be removed from service as such, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State / respondent Nos.1 to 5, would submit that sufficient and ample opportunity has been given to the petitioner to show - cause and to lead evidence, but the petitioner herself was guilty in not leading evidence and complaining against the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) that she has not been given adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to place her case before the Court and as such, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) as affirmed by the two authorities is required to be maintained and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant / respondent No.6 would support the impugned order.

6. S.40 (1) of the Act of 1993 provides as under: -

'40. Removal of office bearers of Panchayat. -

(1) The State Government or the prescribed authority may after such enquiry as it may deem fit to make at any time, remove an office bearer -

(a) if he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or.'

7. A studied glance of the aforesaid provision would show that the prescribed authority in a proceeding under S.40 of the Act of 1993 is required to make enquiry as it may deem fit to make at any time and as such, before passing an order of removal, enquiry is necessary.

8. A Division Bench of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Bansmani v. State of MP and others, 1980 JLJ 60, while dealing with removal of President of Panchayat under S.116 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962, emphasised the need for supplying the charges and materia