PUSHPA SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed the constitutional validity of Sec. 39(1)(b) of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, 1993'). The subject provision of the Act, 1993 confers power on the prescribed authority to suspend an officer bearer of the Panchayat who has been served with a notice along with a charge-sheet to show cause under this Act for his removal from the office.

(2.) Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised two fold submissions. Firstly; he would submit that the power to suspend an officer bearer of the Panchayat for an indefinite period is arbitrary; and secondly; in absence of any provision conferring right of prior opportunity of hearing before passing order of suspension, the provision is violative of principles of natural justice. One more supportive argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in similar enactments of other States an office-bearer of a Panchayat of Gram Panchayat can be suspended for a definite period, therefore, the C.G. Act is arbitrary.

(3.) Shri Vikram Sharma, learned Dy.G.A. appearing for the State, per contra, has opposed the submission made by the petitioner's counsel. According to him, power of suspension is not akin to power to impose punishment, therefore, principles of natural justice are not attracted at this stage. He submits that the order of suspension is required to be confirmed by the State Government under Sec. 39(2) within 90 days failing which it shall be deemed to have vacated, therefore, there is sufficient check and balance on the power exercised by the prescribed authority. It is also argued that the entire petition is vague; based on unclear pleadings; lacking sufficient material demonstrating as to how the provision is ultra vires, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.