This petition challenged an order by the Respondent No.4 removing the petitioner from office for misconduct without recording evidence. The single judge held the order violated natural justice due to lack of proper hearing and evidence.
Impugned order dated 15.12.2009 is quashed. Respondents free to take legal action after due hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
'iffi^
|.||||||||:^,l^|^^|9|||(|:)|'|Ni||i|9i'i^ a^/%jtQ!^lR68Jjt:^!m^|i|yi^^^p^g(39^ |BjOs|s:!JeiJ^^|ciSMiS:l'|l|n:|j.t-l®^1^ iu^ej0|:|o:'.;^ou||{is^p9l©gig^^ :M:'M '^m
,^.t^iN!^ȴ^nM."SINnS' il.V%IO^Ci^;|^%^.:;:^.^:;;'S^ .fSlQNdll^^'
'^'^oN'Eiusl^^^TONt^^i-^^'ylsiN^ :^t?t'i)t{,'^li8:RUOdS8J1,
J^|^ltoli{j^jq^|8^en;tj8is|s|ij|^ :::Kjiu@iii^^^j^Q^FK)l^;.^n^'ue^^^
'^-^ye.iesaav,:-
^3iA7s!o;^iiiii"i^iiii^iiWN0i^^idpWj -l^l''.1:"1.;.;',11'''':;^"-^'^
•:C0-^:,(^r:;:,;::;:::.,'
^efn6j^^iou^ijgi,!J:t|<te^pu|iyotie^^ ^^e^^ed;';;'t£:l''':.:^i;:^'^ :1;1:''.'.,1'','^, ' '^3'fa;: ;:I^H^xgvK';^9i^^^?®(|tlIS-.•..^'^'i. ^B^y:^!%|ui|::^::.,::l^l'^:-^^^
•^j}s|^^TutBf|u|Uie^C?p||Nia|t|^^ 'j93i^©|i:|JSeu(j|i^'l|€s:n^^ i||ii|il|lli^^iiiS|||||ii|i^ ';^sy|tlE!;|^IJi||'i)|^iiG!||i%'J|9y|.^^^^^ ;f|»||pl||ij|i'
::e?|i6a5^i^i^(^:^8^i®AA:;,'^
^tJe^^^ASeyoulet^^.'lQ^^ T';('©'B^n^li1"yw.'l'''/:':;^^^
':tueMei|:3^,^,:-s^'Qi:-:-,-.:''|BAeiio^ ^o.l',:':.:El^yaiyy|dsa;;^:,.:';:-l^'Aj8^o^g1'^ :)46noa:4iy-i^ps!^yi|0^1^o'^Q^.-.,,t,^
"SlN3CtN©cJ:S3y,:
•^'l'
:li!sfi^/e^':'^''-::^6:l!:'^;l^^i
•^•£>-^'1-
efnSjeg 43M1®!0^r^s^yW^6^^ ''NOQiii 'Ili'i:^f^v^^ ^^V^d uj^© ^Ljouedjesl^^^^^^^ '^ ' a0gjtiA^o^^^iee^l',Qg.'^o.qs,,;p3|^. 'ietUl^ o/^ftA9Q eAruri^ -^^
liNoitiiad
Oi0^6iW^I'i^
MniS¥|jtTHWg^s|i^i^i©^
^)
•sam^^^M gSlBiSittl;il^^^ii^i||lii^?::f?|&-i:
^l
Vtf.P.^No.29/2010
iii
r:
^.;
report, ^a; proceedin^ under^^^^^S jGhhattisgarh PaffGftay^^a^^<^ referred1:oas<the^^')wasre9isteredagainstthe^^^^^^ Respondent No.4, after registration of the matter under Section§40^92 ofthe Acl;, dlrected forissu^ cause noticeto the petitioner on 12.10.2Q09. The petitione appeared on 2€10.2G09^and filed replyand the matterw re^ixed on 28;10;20©9. On!the said dafe, c^nselfo peti^Qner appeared befcre the concerned prayedfortimetofileacietaiiedreply.whlchw the said authbrity and the matter was fixed ^ Thereafter,therepiywasfiled.0n| 03.11.2009, t^ cOne^rnedauthoritydirectedforprodUGtionQfevjdencef^ the iOovemment side and the matter was fixedi on vanous other dates, byf n& evidence coujy be pjroduced. M owever, even withQut ^etermlnrng th&^^^^^^^a impugned order ci|ted; 1S.12.2Q09^^^^y^ issued byrespQndent^No.^, saylng^hal^^^ petitloner was rtot.satisfaetory, therefor^, fhe^^^ directed lo deposif the amount of Rs.13J9^40/- pri^^^^^ 23.12.2009. It^salsodirectedthatfifltheamount^^i^ deposited in time, action shsli bie taken uncler Sectipn 32(2) 6ftheActand^hepetltionersha!!besgntto€1^1^^J aforesald amount sftail be recQvered N ari^^^^^^^o^ revenue..1,1'.; 1-';,::1',:.1:1'.;'^ ':l''rl.'':711':'l;'l:"11.1: :'1
^r. Ratan 13usty, learneci counsel appearing on behajfofmepetitioherarguesfiatevenlwithQutdetem the procee^ing inifiateci uncler SectionS?40 ^ 92 o the impugned order date^ 15.12.1009 )(Annexure P/6) has beeh passed. He aiso a^ues that tNe ord^e^ proceeding wout^^shov^ grarrte^ toi;ttie petjtioner to coh^ underSecti&ns40&926ftheAct.i
W.P.(CVN6.29/2010
0n the other hand, Nr. Shashank Thakyr^^^^^ Pan^l l-ayyyerappea^ngonbettcilfofth&^^^^S^ 1 to 4 opposes ese arguments^a^ passed.fJ3y^esRqndentNp.4.7^,.^,;,.^1,-
!Vlr. Akhilesh Kumar, learneci counsel appearing p behalf of respondent No.5 also QpRQses these^^^^^a^ andsupportstheorderpasseclbyresponclent|No.4.
1 haveheard leamedcounselfortheparties^atiength andlhave alsoperusedtherecordsof^
•^
gection-40 of the Act, 1993 reiates to remQyatof office bearers of Panchayat. Siib-section (1^ pf Section 40 pFQvides tftat the^State Govemment or ^ authQHtymayaftersuch'enqyiryas!tmaya|em^fi at anytime, remove an offlce bearer ifheti^b 'miscQnduct'^in the discharge of hS^^^^^ Gontinuance in office 1$ yndesirable in^^ ^ pub!ic. It has also'been ^oviyed that^ removed ynless he hasbeen given an oppo cause vvhy heishoui^not be removed froiTthis office^^^W would include 'misc^ciue has also b expianation to sub^ectlon (1). The ^ CQntained in Section 40 would showtliatthe oppQrtyni show-eause shoyld be reai opportunity. IThe person proceeded against mustjnot pnl^ beto miscondys^, but^tie mi^ which ai^ sougM 16 be ased again^ charges, so that he may offer hls expianation^! thosemaferiais.ltshouldbekeptinmindthat|apersG^^w holds an ^lec^ed office has a rlghtto continut |n his unti!meexpiFyoftheterm.Theorderpassed?u/s^ reacftingaffeGts.asthefindingof^ ordersstofciebasedcasts^^^^a persbn.^ktng^R^iQyeraiJnN^ Section 40 along-wlth^
•"'^'•^iiSBI1 ^%^MI^^^fJi^'^:^i^
Vtf.P.(ClNo.29/2010
beundertaKen isaquasi^udicialaction.Therefore,itwasnot only desirabie but also essential that the^^^^^^ proceedingu/s40oftheActmust givenreasonabieand properbpportunjtytoshow-causetothepersonconcemed.
,[.
In the case, the authority present prescribed {respondent No.4) had jssaed shoW cause notice on 12.10.2009 andreplytQthesaidnotice^^^w petitioner. Thereatter, the Btffihority fixed the matter for evidence ofthe|governmentservants,whichjshowsthatthe authority had caiied upon the State to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. Mowever, w^ evidence ofanywJtnessfromtheGovemmentsideandeven without taking evidence of the petitioner and without recordlng any finding regarding "misconduct" or any other fact,th8impygnedorclerctated 15.12.2009 l(Ann^xureP/6) has been issued. The order sheets of the ;pripceeding un^er Sections 40 & 92 oft the Act wou Id show that prQper opportunity was not granted to the }3etitioRer be!;ore issuing the impughed orci6r ^ated 15.12.2009 ;(Annexure P/6), therefore,theprinciplesofnatyraljusttceare|Vtolated.
Ror the foregoing reasQns, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.2009 (Annexure-P/6) is quashed, However, the respondents woutd be' free to take action against the petitioner in aec^rdance with taw after giving due opportunity of hearing to her.
No order as to cost(s).
Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha f^' Judge
shyna
1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Panchayat authority granted proper opportunity of hearing before recording the finding of misconduct against the petitioner.
Whether the impugned order depriving the petitioner of her office violates principles of natural justice.
Whether the proceedings under Section 40 of the Act are quasi-judicial in nature.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent No.4
Respondent No.5
Sunil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
