Dinesh Rathore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1604 of 2016 • Dinesh Rathore S/o Shri L. P. Rathore, Aged About 29 Years Up- Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhurena, Janpad Panchayat Katghora, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Mantralaya, New Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

3. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Katghora, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate.

For Respondents : Shri PK Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 27/06/2016

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to call in question the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) cum Prescribed Authority, Korba on 10.9.2015 placing the petitioner under suspension in exercise of powers under Section 39(1) (b) of the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (henceforth 'the Act').

2. It is argued that although the petitioner was arrested and sent to police custody in Crime No.102/2015 for offences under Sections 354 (A), 186, 147, 448 of the IPC, under Sections 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, however, the said offences are not included in the list of offence under Section 39(1)(a) of the Act, registration of which would entail suspension of office bearer of a Gram Panchayat. He would also submit that lodging of FIR cannot be treated as automatic disqualification under Section 36 of the Act.

3. Perusal of the papers annexed with the writ petition would reveal that the petitioner has been served with notice under Section 40(1) of the Act along with charge sheet for his proposed removal from the office of Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Durena. In the order of suspension, the prescribed authority has referred to this proceeding under Section 40(1) to invoke the powers under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that the petitioner has not been suspended by invoking Section 39(1)(a) but has been suspended by invoking Section 39(1)(b) of the Act upon issuance of charge sheet and show cause notice for his proposed removal under Section 40 (1) of the Act.

4. For the afore-stated reasons, since the suspension is not under Section 39(1) (a) but under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to impress this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve