MANITA JAIWAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition has assailed the order (P-3) passed by SDO on 6-12-2006, order (P-4) dated 29-1-2007 passed by collector, District Balaghat and other (P-9) dated 5-5-2007 passed by commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, in the matter of removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hatta District balaghat.

(2.) THE removal of the petitioner has been ordered from the post of sarpanch on having been found guilty of the charges levelled against her in the show-cause notice (P- 1) dated 16-5-2006. A complaint dated 27-3-2006 was received which was referred for enquiry to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad panchayat, Balaghat, who after conducting enquiry submitted a report on 13-4-2006. In the report petitioner was found guilty of financial irregularities. On the basis of aforesaid report, show-cause notice 16-5-2006 was issued, reply thereto was submitted before SDO, who is the Competent Authority. During the course of the proceedings under Section 40 of M. P. Panchayat Raj Evam gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1993'), the statement of Enquiry Officer had been recorded by the SDO, opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the petitioner on the Enquiry officer, Enquiry Officer was cross-examined also. Thereafter, the impugned order (P-3) has been passed by the SDO ordering removal of the petitioner on having been found guilty of financial irregularities. The order was unsuccessfully assailed before the Collector and the Commissioner in the appeal and the revision, respectively. Dissatisfied with the proceedings and the orders, the instant writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) SHRI Sharad Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the orders mainly on the ground that the report submitted by the enquiry Officer was relied upon which was not during the course of the proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993. During the course of enquiry which was conducted by the CEO, statements of certain witnesses were recorded. It was not bipartite enquiry. Opportunity of cross-examination was not afforded to the petitioner, consequently the cross-examination of the enquiry Officer was of no avail as the witnesses were required to be examined and thereafter opportunity of cross-examination was required to be afforded as envisaged under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993. Basic principles of natural justice has not been observed and the petitioner has been held guilty of financial irregularities without affording opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, thus, proceedings are liable to be quashed.