1 2025:CGHC:946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 19 of 2025 1 Smt. Vijeta Patel W/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kumhari, Tehsil Tundra, District Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 Collector District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Prescribed Authority Giraudh District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5 Gram Panchayat Kumhari Through The Secretary, Village Kumhari, Janpad Panchayat Tundra, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 6 Rajesh Sahu S/o Dhaniram Sahu R/o Village Kumhari, Block Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 7 Sadhram Patel S/o Pulang Patel R/o Village Kumhari Block Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Ms. Astha Shukla, Shri Ujjwal Choubey, Advocates For Respondent(s) / State : Shri Risabh Bisen, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 07/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present petition the petitioner, who is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kumhari, Janpad Panchayat Kasdol, Dist Balodabazar Bhatapara is questioning order dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the SDO ( R ) Giraudh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. by which the SDO passed order of suspension by exercising his power under Section 39 (1) (b) of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act of 1993’ ). The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filling appeal before the Collector and subsequently the Collector also dismissed the appeal. The petitioner further challenged the order before the Commissioner by filling a revision. The Commissioner also dismissed the revision by order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-1). The order of the Commissioner, Collector and SDO all are questioned under the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act 1993 provides that the prescribed authority may suspend any office bearer on whom show cause notice along with the charge sheet has been served. In the present case only show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-6 dated 31.01.2024. Hence, in absence of any charge sheet the order passed by the SDO is contrary to the provisions of Act of 1993. 3 3. Learned State counsel on, instructions, would submit that the order passed by the SDO under Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act of 1993 is on the basis of show cause notice issued on 31.01.2024 and no charge sheet has been issued together or separately. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders enclosed with the writ petition. 5. Perusal of the order of SDO as well as Annexure P-6 shows that the order of suspension under Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act of 1993 passed by the SDO is only on the basis of the fact that show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 31.01.2024. Perusal of provisions of Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act of 1993 shows that the prescribed authority may only suspend the office bearer on whom show cause notice along with charge sheet under this act has been issued. Therefore, perusal of the order impugned shows that no charge sheet under this Act has been served on the petitioner hence the order of the SDO (Annexure P-3) by which the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Sarpanch by exercising his power under Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act of 1993 dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and the subsequent orders of appellate authorities i.e. the Collector, Commissioner are also quashed. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. However, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti