Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
[2] The words in sub-section (1), "after such inquiry as it may deem fIt to make" would mean an inquiry which is held in the presence of the office-bearer and not behind his back. He should be allowed to inspect the documents which are to be relied upon against him and he should have the right to adduce his own evidence. These are the important facets of an inquiry to be held in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It is not the subjective choice of the prescribed authority to get an inquiry held of any kind. It does not envisage a secret inquiry or a preliminary inquiry alone. That is made only for collection of evidence and at that stage there is no participation ofthe person against whom the action is sought to be taken. The words "as it may deem fIt" have to be construed objectively and would mean an inquiry depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. .J I \ ) 8.40 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)89 i J II I • I I II " granted till disposal of appeal. Amritlal Jaiswal v. State of M.P., 2008(111) . MPWN108. [8]Removal of office bearer of Panchayat.-(a) If at all any action is to be taken in view ofthis section for the purpose of removal of officebearer of Panchayat, the prescribed authority will have to hold firstly an inquiry for the purpose of finding out whether the delinquent happens to be guilty ofthings described by the provisions ofsub-clauses (a) and (b) or the proviso of sub-section (1) of section 40. Further, the prescribed authority will have to point out that the conduct ofthe delinquent was falling under the category of'misconduct' as indicated by the explanation provided to sub-section (1). The officer working as prescribed authority has to keep in mind that proposed action is likely to dislodge a person who has been duly elected by members of the public and that too for the purpose of holding the office as indicated by the Act for performance of the duties indicated by the post or various posts of such panchayats. There should be compliance of the neces- sary provisions of the Act when a person is to be punished legally. Where the person concerned is not proved to have committed any 'misconduct' he cannot be removed from the officehe is holding. Kamal Kishore v. Janpad Panchayat, Nalkheda, 2000 (1) MPLJ 309=1999 (2) MPLJ 470=2000 (1) MPHT=212=19!l9 (2) JLJ 370. (b) Removal of office bearer- Giving of opportunity to show cause is material and not the form. -The underlying principle under sub- section (l) is that an officer hearer,.,before he is removed from officemust-knciw'thEi'".' .• misconduct committed by him and is given an opportunity to show cause before his removal. It is providing an opportunity to show cause which is relevant and not its form. No particular form or mode having been prescribed it is left to the discretion ofthe State or the prescribed authority, either to indicate the act of misconduct or undesirability of continuance in' office in the show cause notice itself or separately. The mandate is that an opportunity to show cause is to be given before passing the order of remove from office.Harishankar Patel v. State of M.P., 1999 (1) MPLJ 16 (DB).