Satyasheel Sahu vs Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur and others

R.S. Jha, Judge

Heard Shri Sushil Mishra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner who is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tinsi, Janpad Panchayat, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the respondent no. 3 suspending the petitioner under the provisions of section 39(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj, Adhiniyam, 1993 on account of the fact that the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner before the Special Magistrate (SC/ST), Jabalpur for alleged offence u/s 306 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. as well as under the provisions of Scheduled caste and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the S.D.O. has been dismissed by the Collector which order has been affirmed by the Commissioner in the revision. Both the aforesaid orders dated 25.05.2012 and 31.07.2012 have also been assailed by the petitioner in the present petition.

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was required to be given a show cause notice before being suspended and in the absence of the same, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

It is further submitted that approval of the State Government has not been obtained u/s 39(2) of the Act, therefore, the order is non-est and deserves to be quashed.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner at length.

From a perusal of the record of the present petition as well as provisions of Section 39(1)(a) of the Act it is clear that there is no provision for giving any show cause notice or charge sheet prior to suspending the office bearer u/s 39(i)(a) of the Act on filing of the charge sheet before the competent criminal court against the office bearer. The provisions of section 39(1)(b) of the Act on which reliance has been placed has since been deleted and is no longer on the statute. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of this Court in the case of Sarita Mabre (Smt.) Vs. State of M.P. and Others, is therefore misconceived as the said decision also relates to the provisions of section 39(i)(b) and not section 39(i)(a) of the Act.

In the circumstances, the first contention of the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby rejected accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner and the Collector to that extent are also upheld.

As far as the second contention of the petitioner regarding approval of the order by the State Government within 90 days of passing the order is concerned, there is nothing on record on the basis of which any finding in that respect can be given by this Court.

In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority requesting for withdrawing the order of suspension in case it has not been approved by the State Government within 90 days of issuing the same by filing a representation along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition and in case the petitioner does so, the authority concerned shall examine the matter and in case approval of the State Government as required u/s 39(2) of the Act has not been obtained within the time frame prescribed therein, appropriate orders may be passed expeditiously, in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.