ORDER Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed correctness and validity of order dated 27-9-2007 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Revision Case No. 88/A-89 (15)/06-07, by which, order dated 12-2-2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Collector Bilaspur and order dated 7-11-2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the office of Sarpanch, have been affirmed. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in the petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time, was holding the office of Sarpanch, after having been duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Malhar. On certain complaint alleging misconduct in discharge of duties and function as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, the Sub Divisional Officer directed enquiry to be made by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi against the petitioner as also against the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the Enquiry Committee was constituted, which included Tehsildar, Masturi, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, Sub Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, Vice President, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, Panch, Gram Panchayat, Malhar and Social Worker of Village Malhar. The Enquiry Committee noticed the complainants as also the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. A report was submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, vide his letter dated 25-9-2006 before the Sub Divisional Officer. Upon receipt of report, the Sub Divisional Officer registered a case against the petitioner and the Secretary and directed issuance of notice. On 10-10-2006, the petitioner appeared and submitted his reply. On 31-10-2006, order sheet recorded that final order could not be passed. Thereafter, on 7-11-2006, the Sub Divisional Officer passed final order under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short "the Adhiniyam of 1993") removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch and also directing recovery of Rs. 7,21,586/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 12-2-2007 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition before the Director, Panchayat. Vide order dated 1-3-2007, the Director, Panchayat passed an interim order. Thereafter, the Director passed another order on 14-3-2007, which was challenged in Writ Petition (C) No. 2114 of 2007. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition before the Director, Panchayat. Vide order dated 1-3-2007, the Director, Panchayat passed an interim order. Thereafter, the Director passed another order on 14-3-2007, which was challenged in Writ Petition (C) No. 2114 of 2007. The writ petition was finally disposed off vide order dated 20-4-2007 (Annexure P-12) setting aside the order dated 14-3-2007 with a direction to afford proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, on petitioner's application dated 9-3-2007 as well as in appeal. Thereafter, the Director, Panchayat, i.e., the Revisional Authority passed the final order dismissing the revision, affirming the order passed by the Collector in appeal as also the order of removal passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of removal is unsustainable in law as no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner as is mandatorily required under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that a slip-shod manner of enquiry was evolved by the Sub Divisional Officer, in which, instead of he himself holding the enquiry, being the Prescribed Authority, directed enquiry committee to be constituted under the Chairmanship of the Tehsildar, who conducted some enquiry and submitted enquiry report, which was made basis for the impugned action of removal. Further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the copy of enquiry report was also not supplied to the petitioner. Further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Sub Divisional Officer did not issue proper show-cause notice to the petitioner specifically stating the charges of misconduct, on which, action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner, but simply an order of appearance was passed. The petitioner submitted his own version by way of reply, but thereafter nothing happened. Neither enquiry report was supplied nor the statement of witnesses or the material documents/records forming basis of enquiry report, were supplied to the petitioner. Neither witnesses were examined nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to lead oral evidence. The bone of contention has been that no enquiry was held by the Sub Divisional Officer, but on the basis of some enquiry, copy of which, has not been supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner has been removed from the office of Sarpanch. The Sub Divisional Officer conducted farce of enquiry. The bone of contention has been that no enquiry was held by the Sub Divisional Officer, but on the basis of some enquiry, copy of which, has not been supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner has been removed from the office of Sarpanch. The Sub Divisional Officer conducted farce of enquiry. He submits that on 26-9-2006, a case was registered and notices were directed to be issued. Thereafter on 10-10-2006, the petitioner submitted his reply and on that date itself, it was recorded that the case was directed to be listed on 31-10-2006, on which, it was recorded that final order could not be passed and then on 7-11-2006, final order has been passed, which shows that no enquiry was made by the Sub Divisional Officer in the matter. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2001) 6 SCC 260 , Sharda Kailash Mittal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 2010 (2) M.P.H.T. 486 (SC) : (2010) 2 SCC 319 , Banasmani Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 MPLJ 34, Raja Raj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2000 (1) M.P.H.T. 490 , Sarita Mabre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1998 (1) JLJ 420 , Kailash Kumar Dangi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999 (2) JLJ 280 , Ballabh Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1998 (1) JLJ 303 , Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101 , Babita Vs. Surendra 2004 (5) M.P.H.T. 79 : 2004 (1) MPLJ 27 , Faiz Mohammad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2004 (4) M.P.H.T. 393 and Mango Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003 (2) MPLJ 112. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was found having committed serious irregularities and had committed misconduct of the nature stated in the impugned order. He submitted that upon receiving complaint, the Sub Divisional Officer directed enquiry to be made under the leadership of Tehsildar and a committee consisting of six persons scrutinized the records of Gram Panchayat and also heard the petitioner, who was noticed in the enquiry. The committee found on facts that serious irregularities were committed by the petitioner. The said report was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer, whereafter the Sub Divisional Officer afforded proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by issuing him a notice. The committee found on facts that serious irregularities were committed by the petitioner. The said report was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer, whereafter the Sub Divisional Officer afforded proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by issuing him a notice. He further submits that the petitioner has full knowledge and notice of the nature of the allegations levelled against him, which is clear from the fact that the petitioner submitted his reply before the Sub Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer after taking into consideration the enquiry report, material on record, reply of the petitioner, recorded a finding of fact with regard to guilt of the petitioner. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not specifically raised any ground in appeal with regard to non-supply of enquiry report or other adverse material collected against him in the enquiry, but while preferring revision, several grounds were taken relating to procedural irregularities, which were rightly rejected by the Revisional Authority. He further submits that all that is required in view of the provisions contained in Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 is to ensure reasonable opportunity of hearing, which has been afforded to the petitioner, in as much as copy of enquiry report was in fact supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner had full opportunity of meeting out each and every allegations and controvert the material, on the basis of which, Enquiry Committee found charges proved against the petitioner. 6. In the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically stated in Para 3 on affidavit that the petitioner was neither given a copy of ex parte enquiry report nor the particulars of charges were supplied. In Para 6.2 of the grounds raised by the petitioner, it has been clearly stated that the copy of the enquiry report submitted and relied upon by the other side has not been supplied to the petitioner and the Sub Divisional Officer relying upon the same report directed removal of the petitioner. In Para 6.2 of the grounds raised by the petitioner, it has been clearly stated that the copy of the enquiry report submitted and relied upon by the other side has not been supplied to the petitioner and the Sub Divisional Officer relying upon the same report directed removal of the petitioner. It has also been stated that non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner has resulted in great prejudice and the petitioner has been deprived of reasonable opportunity as required by the Proviso to subsection (1) of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 from the return of the respondents, it is an admitted position on record that the Sub Divisional Officer had directed enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner and the Secretary, pursuant to which six member Enquiry Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Tehsildar, Masturi. This is clearly evident from the copy of enquiry report, which has been placed on record by the respondents themselves along with the return. Therefore, it is clear that the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the enquiry report was prepared by six member Enquiry Committee. Order sheet dated 26-9-2006 (Annexure P-3) also shows that the Sub Divisional Officer received enquiry report from the office of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi. In the return though the respondents have stated that in the enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar, the petitioner had also participated, there is no specific averment in the return that copy of enquiry report was ever supplied to the petitioner or allowed to be inspected either by the Enquiry Committee or by the Sub Divisional Officer. It has not been stated anywhere in the return that enquiry report, documents attached thereto and the statements recorded were allowed to be inspected by the petitioner. In Para 14 of the return, reply has been given in following words:- 14. Reply to Para 6 (Grounds) of the petition.- In view of the submissions made in the foregoing paragraphs, no grounds are available to the present petitioner and all the grounds raised in this paragraph are liable to be ignored and the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is apparently clear that the respondents have clearly avoided replying the specific allegations raised by the petitioner to the effect that enquiry report is not supplied to the petitioner. It is apparently clear that the respondents have clearly avoided replying the specific allegations raised by the petitioner to the effect that enquiry report is not supplied to the petitioner. A perusal of order sheet dated 26-9-2006, 10-10-2006, 31-10-2006 and 7-11-2006 (Collectively filed as Annexure P-3) also does not record that copy of enquriy report was ever supplied to the petitioner along with the notice on any dates of hearing. In the absence of specific denial regarding non-supply of enquiry report and absence of any other material on record placed by the respondents to satisfy the Court regarding supply of enquiry report, this Court has to hold that enquiry report, which constituted the solitary material adverse to the petitioner, was not supplied to the petitioner. This resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner. On going through the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the Collector as also by the Director, Panchayat in Revenue Case, Appeal and the Revisional proceedings, it is crystal clear that the enquiry report has been made basis to hold the petitioner guilty of misconduct and is the only material forming basis for removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 confers drastic powers on the Sub Divisional Officer to remove a Sarpanch elected through the democratic process. Proviso to subsection (1) of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 clearly obliges the Sub Divisional Officer to give an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action of removal. The opportunity required to be afforded has to be a real opportunity and not a farce. Removal of an elected Sarpanch through democratic process is serious matter. Therefore, the drastic power conferred on the Sub Divisional Officer to remove Sarpanch cannot be permitted to be exercised except in accordance with the manner and following procedure established by law. The requirement of giving an opportunity to show cause seeks to fulfill the requirement of principles of natural justice. The requirement of giving an opportunity to show cause necessarily includes an opportunity to defend the charges. This would mean that the specific allegations of misconduct drawn against the Sarpanch, are required to be stated in the notice itself, so that the Sarpanch may know as to what exactly are the allegations against him, which is required to be replied. The requirement of giving an opportunity to show cause necessarily includes an opportunity to defend the charges. This would mean that the specific allegations of misconduct drawn against the Sarpanch, are required to be stated in the notice itself, so that the Sarpanch may know as to what exactly are the allegations against him, which is required to be replied. In the absence of any specific allegations and charges service of notice in a simple form merely requiring appearance on given date, to say the least, would be a fraud on power. In the present case, a perusal of notice (Annexure P-1) shows that the petitioner was only issued a simple revenue notice requiring him to appear in the office of Sub Divisional Officer on a particular date. This notice by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a notice proposing removal from the office on specific charges/allegations of misconduct. Thus, from the very beginning, the enquiry has been reduced to a farce. It appears that as the petitioner had participated in the enquiry under the Chairmanship of Tehsildar, he had knowledge about various allegations levelled against him, upon which, he could say. The petitioner submitted his version by way of reply. This however, does not absolve the Sub Divisional Officer from its obligation to supply the petitioner a copy of enquiry report. Copy of enquiry report has been placed on record by the respondents themselves along with the return. The enquiry report contains detailed discussion based on certain records of Panchayat. Though, none of the parties have been placed before the Court complete records of enquiry, it is reflected from the enquiry report that the certain oral statements have also been recorded. The enquiry report, therefore, not only contains discussions of oral and documentary evidence collected in the enquiry and the conclusion thereupon by the Enquiry Committee, but also those relevant documents and oral statements, recorded during the course of enquiry. All these constituted adverse material against the petitioner. On that very basis, the Sub Divisional Officer initiated proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 against the petitioner. It is argued that the Sub Divisional Officer did not supply any material whatsoever to the petitioner except giving a stereo type proforma of revenue notice. All these constituted adverse material against the petitioner. On that very basis, the Sub Divisional Officer initiated proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 against the petitioner. It is argued that the Sub Divisional Officer did not supply any material whatsoever to the petitioner except giving a stereo type proforma of revenue notice. Non-supply of enquiry report, relevant documents and oral testimony along with the enquiry report, therefore, definitely resulted in serious violation of principles of natural justice resulting in violation of statutory mandate engrafted under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 in the matter of giving an opportunity to show cause against the action of removal. 7. No sooner the petitioner submitted reply to the Sub Divisional Officer, the Sub Divisional Officer proceeded to pass the order of removal. It is not a case where the enquiry report submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer was merely treated as preliminary enquiry to initiate a full fledged enquiry by issuing a show-cause notice. Present is a case, where the fact finding report in enquiry, was conducted by some other officer, which have been made the sole basis to hold the petitioner guilty of misconduct without conducting further enquiry. The Sub Divisional Officer neither supplied the copy of enquiry report to the petitioner nor summoned any of the records, on the basis of which, the enquiry report was prepared. The order sheets do not show and nor is it the case of the respondents that the Sub Divisional Officer recorded statements of the complainants or other persons/officers and servants of Panchayat. The order-sheet does not show that the petitioner was required to adduce oral or documentary evidence to rebut the charges against him. All that, the Sub Divisional Officer has done is that the enquiry report has been obtained from the Tehsildar, and thereafter final order has been passed. 8. The submission of learned Counsel for the respondents that in appeal, the petitioner did not raise specific grounds relating to non-supply of copy of the enquiry report, therefore, the same could not be raised before this Court, does not appeal to this Court and required to be rejected for the reason that violation of statutory provisions incorporating principles of natural justice could always be raised for the first time before the Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also, I find that the petitioner had taken specific ground relating to procedural irregularities before the Revisional Authority, but those grounds have not been considered by the Revisional Authority. I have also found that the Collector as well as the Revisional Authority have recorded that the petitioner was supplied copy of enquiry report. However, the respondents have failed to plead, much less proving that the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. 9. The enquiry contemplated under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 is definitely a quasi-judicial enquiry into the allegation of misconduct. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 lays down statutory mandate that no person shall be removed unless he has been given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed from his office. Therefore, it is an implicit requirement of law that the person against whom proceedings of removal from the office are initiated, is required to be noticed stating in clear words, the charges/allegations on which he is proposed to be removed from the office. Unless, the person knows as to what are the charges/allegations against him, he would not be in a position to defend those charges. Even though, the statute does not lay down as to in what manner the notices are required to be drawn, it is nevertheless obligatory on the Sub Divisional Officer to clearly state in the notice the specific charges/allegations of misconduct, on the basis of which, removal is proposed. If a proposal to remove on certain charges of misconduct is based on certain enquiry report, it is obligatory on the part of the Sub Divisional Officer to supply copy of enquiry report along with the notice to the person against whom proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 have been initiated, in case, the Sub Divisional Officer intends to place reliance upon the enquiry report. This is so because the enquiry report constitutes adverse material against the person facing enquiry proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 for removal. Therefore, a copy of enquiry report has to be supplied, so that the person may know as to what oral and documentary evidence have been collected against him by the Enquiry Committee and made a basis to record adverse findings against him. Therefore, a copy of enquiry report has to be supplied, so that the person may know as to what oral and documentary evidence have been collected against him by the Enquiry Committee and made a basis to record adverse findings against him. The person, who has been proceeded against is also entitled to an opportunity to submit his own reply on each and every findings contained in the enquiry report. In case, the enquiry report is founded on the certain oral and documentary evidence, it is essential that minimum requirement of principal of natural justice should be followed. Therefore, those adverse material in the form of oral and documentary evidence should also be supplied to the person facing enquiry. In case, the person who is facing charges of removal intends to cross-examine any witness and inspect any of the records and statements which have been recorded and relied upon in the enquiry report, he is entitled to cross-examine the said witness and inspection. Moreover, if the person facing enquiry proceedings of removal under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993, wants to adduce oral and documentary evidence, proper opportunity should also be afforded. 10. In view of the discussion as above and specific finding recorded by this Court that the petitioner was not supplied the copy of enquiry report, nor the oral or documentary evidence on which enquiry report is based, it has to be held that proper opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner, which resulted in not only violation of statutory mandate engrafted under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, but also principles of natural justice. The action is, therefore, illegal. The order of removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law and has to be set aside. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 7-11-2006 (Annexure P-4), the Collector dated 12-2-2007 (Annexure P-7) and the Director Panchayat dated 27-9-2007 (Annexure P-13) are hereby set aside. Liberty is reserved to the Sub Divisional Officer to draw appropriate proceedings against the petitioner by affording him due and proper opportunity of hearing in the light of the observations made by this Court hereinabove. 11. In view of foregoing, the petition is allowed. No orders as to cost