KAMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dtd. 6/4/2023 passed by the Commissioner/respondent No.3. whereby revision filed by petitioner came to be dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was an elected Sarpanch. She was elected in the year 2020. Based on some complaint, an inquiry was conducted against her, inquiry report was submitted on 18/5/2022 opining that the petitioner has committed financial irregularities in discharging her official duties. Based on the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to her on 9/6/2022 to which she submitted reply on 20/7/2022. Sub Divisional Officer only on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner has passed the order on 21/9/2022 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under Sec. 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1993") and further passed the order for recovery of the amount after evaluating all the works done by her. He contended that the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority without following due procedure of law as provided under Sec. 40 of the Act of 1993 i.e. issuing charge memo along with supporting documents, providing opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, has passed an order, therefore, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is bad in law. Petitioner aggrieved with order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Prescribed Authority has preferred an appeal as provided under Rule 3 of the Panchayat Raj (Appeal & Revisions) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1995") before the Collector which came to be dismissed and thereafter the revision application submitted under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995 also came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Appellate and Revisional Authority have not considered the ground raised in the appeal and revision that the order of removal passed under Sec. 40 of the Act of 1993 is in violation of the principles of natural justice as it was passed without following due procedure of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamti Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPC No. 2675 of 2017, decided on 11/12/2017)

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that after receipt of inquiry report, petitioner was served with show cause notice mentioning the notice to be issued under Sec. 40 (1) (c) of the Act of 1993, the petitioner submitted reply and only thereafter the order has been passed and, therefore, there is compliance of the procedure provided under Sec. 40 of the Act of 1993. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority.