BABITA LILHARE Vs. SURENDRA RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is assailing the order (P-3) passed by the SDO on 10-12-2001 and the appellate order (P-9) passed by the Collector on 28-5-2002 and the revisional order (P-13) passed by the Commissioner on 15-11-2002.

(2.) PETITIONER assails the order of removal from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dongaria, Block Khairlanji, Tehsil Waraseoni, District balaghat mainly on the ground that no enquiry was conducted by the SDO. Order-sheets (P-15) of the SDO have been placed on record collectively, which goes to indicate that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 40 of the M. P. Panchayat and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 on 30-3-2001. No evidence was adduced before the SDO against the petitioner though the petitioner submitted the reply (P-17) and petitioner also did not adduce the evidence. Hence, his removal was ordered relying on the preliminary enquiry report and evidence recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry which was conducted sometime in December, 2000, that too was as per the order of SDO in proceeding under Section 40.

(3.) PETITIONER submits that it was incumbent upon the SDO to conduct an independent enquiry before ordering his removal under Section 40 of the Act, thus, when no evidence was adduced before the SDO the show-cause notice ought to have been discharged. No witness was examined to support the charges against the petitioner. Petitioner could not be asked out rightly to adduce the evidence to show his innocence. Firstly charges were required to be established by adducing the evidence. Thus, the procedure adopted by the SDO for removing the petitioner under Section 40 of the Act is absolutely bad in law and grossly arbitrary and order deserves to be set aside. Copy of preliminary inquiry report was not supplied and it was relied upon to remove petitioner.