Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Misconduct and removal of Sarpanch.-Under the provisions of the Act a Sarpanch is required to convene periodical meetings of the Gram Sabha and the resolutions are to be passed therein. It is for the Sarpanch "I (PA)88 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 199.1 8.40 " , ,, basis ofwhich the proceedings are started. The order ofremoval ofan elected officebearer is also a penal provision contained in section 40 oftheAct, and in elected office bearer ofPanchayat elected by people is not to be branded unceremoniously. The show cause notice required to be issued under the said proceedings is to reflect the charges on the basis of which the proceed. ings are started under section 40 of the Act. Only after completing the proceeding in this manner for the purposes ofreaching to definite findings, whether any misconduct or other contingency mentioned in the provisions of section 40 of the Act is made out or not, the order can be passed by the .prescribed authority. If it is not done, the proceedings under section 40 of the Act would be vitiated. Since such impugned order has been passed in a proceedings initiated on the complaint made by the petitioner under section 92 ofthe Act and the power under section 40 of the Act have been exercised by the SDO, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Maya Choudhary v. State of M.P., 2012(2) MPLJ 90 = 2012(5) MPHT 240. [7]Removal of Sarpanch ..(a) Removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. No proper enquiry was conducted by the SDO before ordering removal. Case remitted to the SDO to conduct enquiry in accordance with law. Manita Jaiwar v. State of M.P., 2009(3) MPLJ 370 = 2009(2) JLJ 333 = 2009(3) MPHT 70. (b)A Sarpanch was removed Sub.Divisional Officer after considering an enquiry report submitted by three member committee. The petitioner was not given copy ofe.nquiry. report to submit his objections o~ explanations .... Principles of natural justice violated. Order of removal set aside and the Sub. Divisional Officer ordered to proceed after supplying a copy of such report to the petitioner. Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi v. State of M.P., 2004 (4) MPLJ 6=2004 (3) MPHT 373. (c) Procedure.- In proceedings for removal of a Sarpanch, witnesses must be examined and the Sarpanch should be given an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. Babita Lilahare v. Surendra Rana, 2004 (1) MPLJ 27=2004 (5) MPHT 79. See also Kailashchandra Jain v. State of M.P., 2003 (3) MPLJ 260=2002 (5) MPHT 523, Faiz Mohd Faiz v. Stateof M.P., 2004 (4) MPHT 393. ' (d) Defective Enquiry.-Prescribed Authority though aware ofthe fact that the officers who prepared the enquiry report did not appear for cross- examination, yet proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of charges on the basis of same enquiry report. It is not fair trial. An order of removaVdis- qualification based on such defective enquiry cannot be given the stamp of approval. Smt. Phool Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009(2) MPHT 68 = 2009(1) JLJ 437. (e) Secret enquiry or preliminary enqui,j alone is not enough. S.D.a. should hold enquiry according to law. Mangobai v. State of M.P., 2003 (2) MPLJU2. (f) Grant ofstay.-When an appeal is pending for hearing against the removal order of a Sarpanch and if the Sarpanch. filed an application for interim relief for staying the operation of the removal order, it cannot be refused because the holding of a democratic office and removal therefrom, under the Constitution of India, cannot be treated lightly. Stay should be has,to,be enumerated. The mode followed for taking action under section 40 , ,if lield to be valid, it cannot be said to be invalid for action of suspension under the said clause (b) only on the ground that the charge sheet and notice to show cause were composite. Harishankar Patel v. State of M.P., 1999 (1) " MPLJ 16 (DB).