IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 21284 of 2024 Smt.Mamali Samal …. Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Kumar Panda, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K.Mohanty, ASC CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER

13.01.2025 Order No.

04. 1. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State.

2. In fact, Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State requests for an adjournment to consider the citation in Basudev Dandasena Vrs. State of Odisha & others reported in 2010(I) OLR-909 cited by Mr.

Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and to respond.

3. A copy of the above citation is made available to the Court by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is perused. Considering the submission of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and the case law cited above, the Court is inclined to dispose of the matter by the following order.

4. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned decision by order dated 9th August, 2024 of the Government as at Annexure-1 on the grounds stated.

5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is non-compliance of Section 115 of the Odisha Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as no report was received from the Collector or the Project Director, DRDA before taking action and passing the order of suspension under Annexure-1 against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-1 is without affording without opportunity of hearing to show cause and hence, the same is liable to be interfered with and set aside with consequential directions issued. In support of such contention, Mr. Panda, learned counsel cited the above case law and submits that the decision to suspend the petitioner cannot be sustained in law for not being in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in particular, Section

115(1) thereof.

6. Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order under Annexure-1 on the ground that the petitioner has been suspended, since she was arrested in connection with a Vigilance case and was judicial custody for more than 48 hours.

7. A reference to the relevant provision may be had and hence, Section 115(1) of the Act is reproduced herein below:

“ 115. Suspension and removal of Sarpanch, Naib-Sarpanch and Member :– (1) If 1 (1) If the State Government, on the basis of a report of the Collector or the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, or suo motu are of the opinion that circumstances exist to show that the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or violates the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder or abuses the powers, rights and privileges vested in him or acts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama and that the further continuance of such person in Office would be detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat or the inhabitants of the Grama, they may after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, remove him from the Office of Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be.’’

8. As per the above provision, the Government has a suo motu power to take cognizance of any event before initiating action, such as, suspension and removal of the Sarpanch, Naib- Sarpanch or members for that matter but before any such decision, an opportunity of hearing to be provided to the office bearer concerned followed by an action supported with the reasons.

9. In the instant case, it is claimed that no such opportunity was provided to the petitioner to show cause before the impugned order under Annexure-1 was passed. It is submitted that such decision is not supported by any reasons which is statutory mandate as per the Section 115(1) of the Act. Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State refers to the counter affidavit filed through oppo