SATYAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission/stay. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order dtd. 20/12/2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Additional Collector and CEO, Zila Panchayat, Datia, whereby petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kheri Devta, Tahsil Indergarh, District Guna.

(2.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before his removal. From the impugned order, it appears that initially case proceeded in respect of suspension of petitioner purportedly under Sec. 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, but matter turned towards Sec. 40 regarding removal and petitioner has been removed without following due process as prescribed in Sec. 39 and 40 of the Act, 1993. It is the specific submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing such order.

(3.) Even otherwise, no charge has been framed against the petitioner for offence under Ss. 406, 409, 420 of the IPC vide Crime No.264/2023 at Police Station Tharet, District Datia. Framing of charge is mandatory for suspension of Sarpanch. Here no charge has been framed against the petitioner for offence as prescribed in Sec. 39 (1) of the Act, 1993. Even otherwise, contingencies as provided in Sec. 40 of the Act, 1993 are not fulfilled. Approach of authority is arbitrary and illegal and aimed to topple the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. Soon notification is likely to be issued for fresh election. This would render the case as infructuous.