Disposed

Dashrath Kunjam v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2024WPC/2873/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A division bench held that the petitioner, an elected Panchayat President, is entitled to documents relied upon for a show cause notice issued under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which were inadvertently omitted.

What did the court decide?

Director respondent No.2/Collector to supply relevant documents by the next hearing date and grant the petitioner opportunity to file a reply.

Dashrath Kunjam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 2873 of 2024

¶5

Dashrath Kunjam S/o Late Lakhmu Ram Kunjam, Aged About 49 Years President Of Janpad Panchayat Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

The Collector, District- Bijapur (C.G.)

¶10

The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur (C.G.)

¶11

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bahiramgarh, District Bijapur (C.G.)

¶12

Ajay Singh (Contractor) Aged About 47 Years, S/o Sarju Singh R/o Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur (C.G.)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer

¶15

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

16/07/2024

¶18

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following

¶19

reliefs:-

¶20

“ 10.1. A writ and/or an order to set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Collector, District – Bijapur.

¶21

-2-

¶22

10.2. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the whole revenue proceedings initiated by the Collector, which is without jurisdiction.

¶23

10.3. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate. ”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected President of Janpad Panchayat -Bhairamgarh, District- Bijapur. Based upon some complaint made against him, an inquiry was conducted in which the petitioner was not noticed to participate in the said inquiry proceeding and inquiry was conducted behind his back, by incompetent authority. Thereafter, based on the said inquiry report, show cause notice under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “ Act of 199 3”) was issued and it is this notice which is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that notice was issued based on the inquiry report conducted behind back of the petitioner and further that no documents as enclosed along with show cause notice were supplied to him though in the said notice, there is mention that all the documents relied upon are enclosed along with show cause notice to be sent to the petitioner and therefore the show cause notice be quashed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State submits that he has sought instructions from respondent No.2/Collector and as per his

¶26

-3-

¶27

instructions, inadvertently, the documents which are to be enclosed along with show cause notice were not enclosed and the documents inadvertently were not forwarded to the petitioner. He submits that documents which are relied upon for issuance of show cause notice will be handed over to the petitioner at the earliest before the next date of hearing.

¶28

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

Petitioner is an elected President of Janpad PanchayatBhairamgarh, District- Bijapur, was issued show cause notice under Section 40 of the Act of 1993. Relevant provision under Section 40 of the Act of 1993 being relevant is reproduced as under:-

¶30

“40. Removal of office-bearers of Panchayat. (1)The State Government or the prescribed authority may after such enquiry as it may deem fit to make at any time, remove an office-bearer,-

¶31

(a)if he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or

¶32

(b)if his continuance in office is undesirable in the interest of the public :

¶33

Provided that no person shall be removed unless he has been given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed from his office.

¶34

x x x .”

¶35

From the contents of the show cause notice it is reflecting that

¶36

-4-

¶37

respondent No.2/Collector mentioned in the show cause notice to supply necessary documents to petitioners along with show cause notice. However, the said documents which were relied upon for issuance of show cause notice are not supplied and therefore in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is entitled for the documents which are relied upon by the prescribed authority for issuance of show cause notice under Section 40 of the Act of 1993, to enable him to take proper defence.

¶38

For the foregoing discussions, respondent No.2/Collector is directed to supply all necessary documents which are relied upon for issuance of show cause notice as also mentioned in the show cause notice, by the next date of hearing fixed.

¶39

After supplying the relevant documents, the petitioner shall be granted proper and sufficient opportunity to file reply to show cause notice. Petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the objection as raised in this writ petition in the reply to be submitted before respondent No.2/Collector pursuant to show cause notice (Annexure P-1).

¶40

With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-/---/-/-

¶42

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶43

Praveen

Dashrath Kunjam v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashrath Kunjam v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Ambe Construction, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vipin Garg Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Dhruv Vs Government of India

Ramji Singh Ravi @ Ramkumar Ravi Vs Assistant Engineer, Cspdcl

Harilal Dewangan Vs Union of India