SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 1734

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
string, string
Santosh Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh
W.P.(C) No. 4162 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Prafulla N. Bharat
For the Respondents: Ms. Astha Shukla, Shri T.K. Jha

Violation of natural justice principles due to failure to provide key evidence and opportunity to contest allegations under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the procedural validity under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 regarding the removal of a Sarpanch. The Court found that the appellant was not provided an adequate opportunity for defense, as key evidence and witness examinations were omitted, constituting a violation of natural justice principles. The Court stated, 'there is no clarity in the proceedings recorded by the Prescribed Authority with regard to supply of enquiry report with supporting documents.' Consequently, the appellate decision was set aside for rehearing, directing the authority to properly follow due process.

Table of Content
1. appellant contests removal from sarpanch post. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on procedural fairness and opportunity for defense. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. judicial analysis of procedural compliance and natural justice. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. court's decision to set aside prior findings. (Para 16)
5. directives for re-evaluation under lawful procedures. (Para 17)

1. Appellant in this appeal has challenged the legality and sustainability of the order dated 07.01.2022, passed in W.P.(C) No. 4162 of 2021, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, challenging the order of Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against order of removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam, 1993').

2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that the appellant/petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sirsakhurd. Election certificate under Form- 25 was issued to him by the Returning Officer on 30.01.2020. Some villagers submitted a complaint before the District Collector, making 9 allegations therein. Copy of the complaint was also forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District-Durg, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Durg. Respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to submit parawise report on the complaint submitted by one elected member of Janpad Panchayat and villagers (Annexure R/ 7-1) dated 11-14/09/2020. Two members team submitted its report to respondent No.4 vide (Annexure P-5).

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat forwarded the preliminary enquiry report to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 06.11.2020 with a covering memo, agreeing with conclusion of enquiry team. Sub-Divisional Officer (R)/Prescribed Authority under the Adhiniyam, 1993, issued a show cause notice (Annexure P-8) to the appellant. Appellant replied to the show cause notice. Statements of both the members of the enquiry team were recorded and thereafter, the Prescribed Authority (respondent No.3) passed order of removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and declared him ineligible for a period of six years for contesting any panchayat election. Appellant, aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rules framed thereunder, before the Collector, Durg. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.09.2021. Appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Collector/Appellate Authority, had filed writ petition on 06.10.2021 bearing W.P.(C) No. 4162 of 2021, which also came to be dismissed vide order impugned.

4. Shri Prafulla N. Bharat, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the appellant, who was an elected Sarpanch, was removed from his post under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Under this provision, Prescribed Authority is vested with the powers to remove office bearers but such powers cannot be exercised without providing an opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that the basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was a written complaint lodged by some of the villagers before the Collector and also Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. The Chief Executive Officer directed for conducting preliminary enquiry on the compliant and it was enquired by team of two auditors of the Janpad Panchayat. Enquiry team recorded statements of villagers and submitted their report, but along with show cause notice, copy of enquiry report was not supplied. No separate charge- sheet was issued to the appellant specifying the charges. The persons based on whose statements the team of enquiry opined that the appellant has committed misconduct, were not examined before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority has not follo














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top