Arti Bareth vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The case of the petitioner is that the order passed u/s 39(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1993") suspending the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch is unsustainable in law, as the compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 39 has not been completed. Second limb of the argument of the petitioner is that since no criminal case is pending against the petitioner, as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, the petitioner has wrongly been suspended, which could not have been done.

The indisputable facts are that a case u/s 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was initiated by the prescribed authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir-Champa, against the petitioner, on 26-3-2012. By order dated 27-12-2012 (Annexure - P/2) it was directed to issue a show cause notice and also the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of its power u/s 39(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993.

Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa. The Collector having considered all the aspects of the matter dismissed the revision holding that the suspension order was an interim order. The petitioner can participate in the enquiry to prove her innocence, as the charge sheet has been issued for holding enquiry.

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the power exercisable under sub-section (2) of Section 39, which provides for reporting the matter to the State Government within a period of 10 days, has been complied with. It is further provided that if the State Government did not pass an order or does not confirm the order of suspension the same shall be deemed to have been vacated within 90 days. The State Government has delegated the power u/s 39(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 to the Collector, as is evident from the notification dated 2-2-1998, which reads as under:

No. F.1-11-95-XXD-P-2., dated 2nd February 1998. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (No. 1 of 1994), the State Government hereby delegate its power under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the said Act to the officers mentioned in Column (2) of the Table below in respect of the Panchayat mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof, namely:--

Having considered all the facts and the arguments advanced by the petitioner, the suspension of the petitioner u/s 33(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was justified. For placing the petitioner, as office bearer, under suspension, the requirement is not only pending certain criminal cases, as mentioned therein, but also issue of charge-sheet, pending enquiry.

In the case on hand, charge sheet was issued and enquiry is pending. Thus, the suspension order cannot be held as erroneous, illegal or irregular. The Collector has affirmed the suspension order by dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and, as such, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 27-12-2012. The requirement of confirmation u/s 39(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 has been fully complied with. In the result, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.