NEELAM KAUSHAL CHANDRAKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE to the respondents is dispensed with as Shri Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer appears on behalf of State/respondents and consents for hearing.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside the notice dated 21.09.2011 (Annexure P/1) with all consequential orders/proceedings/ actions taken in pursuance of the said notice and to set aside the order dated 25.07.2012 (Annexure P/2) to the extent of keeping the case No. 60-A/89-2010-2011 pending and direct to send proposal before the respondent Collector for constituting Enquiry Committee and submit report within a stipulated period for deciding the matter under section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, 1993) at the earliest.

(3.) THE SDO, Patan, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Committee was not properly constituted and as such, the matter was referred to the Collector with a request to constitute a proper Enquiry Committee under the provisions of law, and thereafter, other steps as required under section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, may be taken. Shri Sharma further submits that if the Enquiry Committee was not properly constituted, the provisions of section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, for removal of the office bearers, may not be invoked. In support of his contention, Shri Sharma relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad & Others1 and Sharda Kailash Mittal v. State of M.P. & Others2.