← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/430/2017allowed

Smt. Sunita Sarthi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-04-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No.430 of 2017 • Smt. Sunita Sarthi W/o Vinod Sarthi, Aged About 25 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur; R/o Village & P O Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Department Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P O & P. S. Rakhi, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue), Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

6. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Masturi, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

7. Ishwar Suryavanshi, S/o Late Nankaiya Suryavanshi, R/o Jairamnagar Road, Gopiyapar, P O & Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 3:

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, GA For Respondent No.6 :

Shri S. C. Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.7 :

Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate, on Caveat S.B. :

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 06/04/2017 Heard.

2.

Upon perusal of records in his possession, learned State counsel, in the

present case, representing respondent No.3, who had issued the impugned show cause notice, concedes that the impugned show cause notice is not in accordance with law, because proper charge sheet, as required under the law, was not annexed with the notice.

3.

In view of the concession so made by the learned State counsel and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Radhe Shyam Singh Rajput vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others1, it is vividly clear that the impugned show cause notice is not in accordance with law and therefore, deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The petitioner be reinstated forthwith. It will be open for the respondents to act in accordance with law. 4.

In the result, the petition is allowed.

SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane WP(C)No.1902 of 2014, decided on 17-11-2014