ORDER 14.2.05 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 4.10.2004 passed by the Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Sec¬tion 26 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she is the elected Sarpanch of Manikeswar Gram Panchayat. The Collector in his notice dated 11.8.2004 under Annexure-1 informed the petitioner that she was blessed with a third child born after the Orissa Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1994 came into force. Stating this fact in the show cause notice dated 11.8.2004, the Collector in exercise of power conferred on him by the Act, called upon the petitioner to file show cause reply before him personally with relevant documents and witnesses within fifteen days on the question as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from the office of the Sarpanch. In compliance with the said notice, the petitioner filed reply to show cause notice on 31.8.2004 stating inter alia that from the Register maintained by the Village Anganwadi Centre and in Raikia Health Centre, it would be evident that the petitioner has only two children and no such third child was born to her. Despite the aforesaid reply, the Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani, by the impugned order dated 4.10.2004 under Annexure-4, dismissed the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch of Manikeswar Gram Panchayat on the basis of the reports submitted before him by the B.D.O., Raikia and the Medical Officer, P.H.C., Raikia. It was noted in the impugned order that the Collector could learn from the aforesaid reports that the petitioner gave birth to the third child on May, 2003. But it does not appear from the records that the copies of the reports which the Collector had received from the B.D.O. and Medical Officer were furnished to the petitioner, though these reports appear to be the foundation for the conclusion that the petitioner gave birth to a third child after the amendment of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act came into force. The whole decision of the Collector in this regard, is based on the aforesaid reports. The petitioner was kept completely in the dark about the contents of such reports. She was not given any opportunity whatsoever to rebut the contents of such report.
The whole decision of the Collector in this regard, is based on the aforesaid reports. The petitioner was kept completely in the dark about the contents of such reports. She was not given any opportunity whatsoever to rebut the contents of such report. We, therefore, observe that it is an arbitrary way of deciding such an important issue as to whether an elected representative like Sarpanch should be dis¬missed from her office or not. It is equally in violation of principles of natural justice. Without giving the petitioner an opportunity of rebutting the contents of the reports of the B.D.O. and Medical Officer, such documents ought not to have been acted upon by the Collector for removing the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch. As the impugned order under Annexure-4 is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, we have no option but to quash the same, which is accordingly quashed. However, it is open to the Collector to furnish the petitioner with the copies of the reports that he had received from the B.D.O. and the Medical Officer and to give the petition¬er a fresh opportunity to give further show cause reply to deal with the contents of such reports and thereafter the Collector may after giving opportunity to produce any rebuttal evidence and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner decide the matter afresh on the question whether the petitioner should be dismissed from the office of the Sarpanch on the aforesaid grounds. 4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.