UMASHANKAR PORTE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The legality and validity of impugned order (Annexure P/1) by which, the petitioner has been placed under suspension, is assailed on the ground that the order is in excess of jurisdiction in as much as there is no notice for removal along with the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner as contemplated under Section 39 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Act of 1993").

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice dated 08.03.2017 is merely a notice to show cause as to why the petitioner be not suspended. He submits that there is no charge-sheet served upon the petitioner requiring him to show cause against his removal from office as contemplated under Section 40 of the Act of 1993, therefore, the suspension order is illegal being the teeth of provision contained in Section 39 of the Act of 1993. In support of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sarita Mabre (Smt.) Vs. State of M.P. and Ors,1998 1 JabLJ 420.