1 2025:CGHC:5662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3334 of 2019 Dhal Sahu S/o Shri Jambeshwar Sahu Aged About 41 Years Sarpanch Gram Panchyat Dulna,l R/o Village- Dulna P.O._- Patewa, Police Station- Gobra Nawapara, Tahsil- Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchyat Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Joint Director Panchyat And Samaj Kalyan Raipur Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Panchayat Raipur Raipur Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)( Prescribed Officer) Abhanpur Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Raipur Raipur Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur Abhanpur Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Gopal Sahu R/o Village- Dulna, P.O. - Patewa, Police Station- Gobra Nawapara, Tahsil- Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. For Respondents No. 5 and 6 : None For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.01.31 11:07:44 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30/01/2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 (Annexure-P/1). 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition. 2) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) – cum – Prescribed Authority Abhanpur, District-Raipur whereby the petitioner was removed from the O/o Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dulna, Development Block & Tehsil- Abhanpur, District Raipur. 3) Facts of the present case are that on the basis of a complaint made by Gopal Sahu and eight other persons, a proceeding u/s 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 was initiated against the petitioner who was holding the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dulna and the case was proceeded on day to day basis before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Abhanpur and finally, the order was passed on 12.09.2019 whereby the petitioner was removed from the said post and was disqualified for a period of six years according to provisions of Section 40(1)(क) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right of the petitioner to cross-examination complainants’ witnesses was closed vide order dated 31.08.2019 holding that on earlier dates i.e. 3 22.09.2017 and 25.09.2017, the opportunity was provided to the petitioner which is contrary to order-sheets annexed to this petition as on 22.09.2017, due to unavailability of the presiding officer, the case was fixed for further hearing on 16.10.2017 and the case was not even fixed for hearing on 25.09.2017. He contends that due to gross inadvertence on the part of the authority concerned, the petitioner could not cross-examine the complainants’ witnesses and lead evidence to establish his innocence. He argues that in view of the above, the entire proceeding initiated by SDO(R), Abhanpur stood vitiated. He prays to quash the order dated 12.09.2019 in the interest of justice. 5) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing on behalf of respective respondents oppose. 6) Heard. 7) From a perusal of the order-sheets of SDO(R), Abhanpur, it appears that the case was fixed for cross-examination of the complainants’ witnesses and the petitioner was granted the opportunity. On 22.09.2017, the presiding officer was not available; therefore, the case was adjourned for 16.10.2017. The order-sheet dated 31.08.2019 would show that the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the complainants’ witnesses was closed on the ground that the petitioner was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the complainants’ witnesses on 22.09.2017 and 25.09.2017. The presiding officer fixed the case for final arguments vide order dated 31.08.2019 and passed the final order on 12.09.2019. Evidently, on 22.09.2017, the presiding officer was not available; therefore, the case was set for further hearing on 16.10.2017. It is also 4 apparent that the case was never set for hearing on 25.09.2017 and thus, findings recorded by the presiding officer appear to be perverse. 8) Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the complainants’ witnesses and he has not been permitted to lead evidence, therefore, the order passed by SDO(R) -cum-Prescribed authority, Abhanpur is erroneous and liable to be quashed. 9) Consequently, the order dated 12.09.2019 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to initiate a fresh proceeding after affording a proper opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainants’ witnesses and also allow the petitioner to lead evidence. Thereafter, the authority concerned shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the merits of the case. 10) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya