ORDER : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. Appellant in this appeal has challenged the legality and sustainability of the order dated 07.01.2022, passed in W.P.(C) No. 4162 of 2021, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, challenging the order of Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against order of removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “Adhiniyam, 1993”). 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that the appellant/petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sirsakhurd. Election certificate under Form- 25 was issued to him by the Returning Officer on 30.01.2020. Some villagers submitted a complaint before the District Collector, making 9 allegations therein. Copy of the complaint was also forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District-Durg, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Durg. Respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to submit parawise report on the complaint submitted by one elected member of Janpad Panchayat and villagers (Annexure R/ 7-1) dated 11-14/09/2020. Two members team submitted its report to respondent No.4 vide (Annexure P-5). 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat forwarded the preliminary enquiry report to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 06.11.2020 with a covering memo, agreeing with conclusion of enquiry team. Sub-Divisional Officer (R)/Prescribed Authority under the Adhiniyam, 1993, issued a show cause notice (Annexure P-8) to the appellant. Appellant replied to the show cause notice. Statements of both the members of the enquiry team were recorded and thereafter, the Prescribed Authority (respondent No.3) passed order of removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and declared him ineligible for a period of six years for contesting any panchayat election. Appellant, aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rules framed thereunder, before the Collector, Durg. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.09.2021. Appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Collector/Appellate Authority, had filed writ petition on 06.10.2021 bearing W.P.(C) No. 4162 of 2021, which also came to be dismissed vide order impugned. 4. Shri Prafulla N. Bharat, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the appellant, who was an elected Sarpanch, was removed from his post under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. 4. Shri Prafulla N. Bharat, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the appellant, who was an elected Sarpanch, was removed from his post under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Under this provision, Prescribed Authority is vested with the powers to remove office bearers but such powers can not be exercised without providing an opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that the basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was a written complaint lodged by some of the villagers before the Collector and also Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. The Chief Executive Officer directed for conducting preliminary enquiry on the compliant and it was enquired by team of two auditors of the Janpad Panchayat. Enquiry team recorded statements of villagers and submitted their report, but along with show cause notice, copy of enquiry report was not supplied. No separate charge-sheet was issued to the appellant specifying the charges. The persons based on whose statements the team of enquiry opined that the appellant has committed misconduct, were not examined before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and had passed the order of removal, disqualifying the appellant to contest election for six years. Appellant was even not provided with essential documents along with show cause notice like preliminary enquiry report submitted by team of two members, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the enquiry team and such other documents collected during the course of enquiry, forming part of the report. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition considered that there is no specific pleading in reply that petitioner was not served with enquiry report and supporting documents, and the proceedings recorded by the Prescribed Authority in order sheet dated 24.11.2010 acknowledging “document received”. It only recorded copy of document given without any specification. He submitted that petitioner was not given enquiry report with all supporting documents. The Prescribed Authority had passed the order of removal dated 04.03.2021 in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Ms. It only recorded copy of document given without any specification. He submitted that petitioner was not given enquiry report with all supporting documents. The Prescribed Authority had passed the order of removal dated 04.03.2021 in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel for the State would submit that the Prescribed Authority followed the procedure prescribed under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, issued show cause notice, examined witnesses in support of the allegation in show cause notice, provided an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and only thereafter, the order of removal was passed. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice. She further submits that the learned Single Judge took note of the endorsement made by the appellant of receiving documents, hence, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the report and other supporting documents were not supplied is contrary to the proceeding recorded in order-sheet of the Prescribed Authority dated 24.11.2020. Order-sheets submitted by counsel for the private respondents are available on record. Both the members of enquiry team appeared before the Prescribed Authority. Their statements were recorded and they were also cross-examined by the appellant. There is concurrent finding by the authorities below as well as by the learned Single Judge. The appeal, therefore, is devoid of any substance. 7. Shri T.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 would submit that allegation against the appellant is of financial irregularities. On the complaint made by the villagers, enquiry team was constituted, they enquired into the complaint, recorded statement of villagers and submitted report opining that most of the allegations were found to be correct. He contended that the Prescribed Authority had passed an order of removal following procedure as prescribed under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. He also contended that he has placed on record the entire order-sheets of the proceedings drawn by Prescribed Authority from which, it is apparent that the Prescribed Authority had provided the documents, examined the witnesses, given opportunity to appellant to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter passed order of removal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents placed along with the writ petition and writ appeal. 9. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents placed along with the writ petition and writ appeal. 9. To appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the violation of principles of natural justice, perusal of show cause notice (Annexure P-8), issued to the appellant would show that it only mentions that in enquiry report, point No.1 to 9 of complaint were found to be correct. Withdrawn heavy amount without proposal of the panchayat, salary to panchayat employees were not paid for six months and details of income and expenditure were not provided to the enquiry team. No specific charge-sheet has been issued to the appellant. Further copy of the notice does not mention that the Prescribed Authority supplied copy of enquiry report, copy of complaint and the statement of witnesses recorded by the members of enquiry team. 10. The enquiry report prepared by the enquiry team is the outcome of enquiry conducted by them on complaint signed by some of the villagers. Report is based on statement of the witnesses recorded by enquiry team and some documents collected. In the order-sheet of the proceedings of Prescribed Authority placed on record by the respondent No.7, it is not mentioned that the complainants or the witnesses whose statements were recorded by the members of the enquiry team were examined before the Prescribed Authority. Proceedings only mentions that both the members of the enquiry team were examined and were cross-examined. They, at the most, can be said to be hearsay witnesses. In the enquiry report some of the allegations of complaint are stated to be correct on the basis of the statement of one Ram Naresh Sarthi, Assistant Data Operator, that he deposited Rs.2,68,029/- with the appellant and some other entries showing the income from other sources, but those amounts were not deposited in bank. Ram Naresh Sarthi was not examined before the Prescribed Authority to prove the charges and similarly, no other person based on whose statements enquiry report was prepared, were examined before the Prescribed Authority. Ram Naresh Sarthi was not examined before the Prescribed Authority to prove the charges and similarly, no other person based on whose statements enquiry report was prepared, were examined before the Prescribed Authority. In absence of examination of those persons as witnesses before the Prescribed Authority, appellant was deprived of his valuable right to cross-examine those witnesses, more so, when the allegation is with regard to some financial irregularities having the consequences not only of removal from the post of Sarpanch but disqualification for further six years to contest any panchayat election. 11. The enquiry report appears to be prepared on the direction of CEO, Janpad Panchayat and its purpose is only to record primafacie satisfaction on the allegation of the compliant and if any action is required to be taken for removal of office bearer under the provisions of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, the allegations are required to be proved before the Prescribed Authority in accordance with law, who is the authority competent to pass order when the action proposed under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 is having civil consequences. The evidence and material forming the basis against appellant were not produced before the authority enabling the appellant to cross-examine those witnesses. 12. We have also perused the proceedings recorded by the Prescribed Authority in the order sheet placed on record by the respondent No.7. Perusal of the same would show that in the proceedings dated 08.02.2021, Prescribed Authority recorded that evidence in chief of the appellant was submitted by way of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C. and immediately thereafter fixed the case for arguments. Prescribed Authority has not recorded whether the appellant wants to produce any other witnesses in his defence, which in the opinion of this Court was essential, when the outcome of the proceedings may dislodge the office bearer from the post and disqualify him for further period of six years as envisaged under Section 40 (2) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The application of sub-section 2 of Section 40 is automatic and consequential to the order passed under Section 40 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The Prescribed Authority has to draw proceedings keeping in mind the consequence of the proceeding under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. 13. The application of sub-section 2 of Section 40 is automatic and consequential to the order passed under Section 40 (1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The Prescribed Authority has to draw proceedings keeping in mind the consequence of the proceeding under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. 13. Examination of the complainant’s as witnesses, persons whose statements were said to be recorded by the members of the enquiry team are more important in the facts of the case, more so when the Prescribed Authority considered the statement of members of enquiry team, wherein it has come that period of allegations includes the period of nation wide lock-down, the arrears of the pay was of the period of Ex-Sarpanch. All the payments as stated to be made by the appellant were online payments. The witness, who was the member of enquiry team in his statement in chief have categorically stated that due to Covid19 protocol lock-down there was no panchayat proposal and therefore, Sarpanch has not given any information of payment through panchayat proposal. It is also admitted that there are 20 Panchas. Statement of 10 Panchas have not been recorded nor they were enquired and further stated that the joint statement of signatories of complaint were taken and their statements have not been recorded separately. 14. In view of the aforementioned evidence of Shri Devi Ram Dhruv, Senior Internal Auditor, examination of signatories of the complaint before Prescribed Authority was necessary to prove the allegations. One more important aspect of the case is that on the date of enquiry, previous panchayat Secretary was on leave. The documents in possession of the Panchayat Secretary including cashbook were not looked into. Cashbook was not handed over to new Secretary as stated by Enquiry Officer in his cross-examination. The order-sheet dated 24.11.2020, though bears the endorsement that ‘documents received’ and the proceedings of 24.11.2020 mention that copy of document provided but it does not mention the nature of the documents and further the word has been used in ‘singular’. It does not specify as to whether the copy of the enquiry report with supporting documents were given to the appellant. Hence, from the said proceedings recorded by the Prescribed Authority dated 24.11.2020, it is not clear that appellant was provided with copy of enquiry report along with supporting documents. It does not specify as to whether the copy of the enquiry report with supporting documents were given to the appellant. Hence, from the said proceedings recorded by the Prescribed Authority dated 24.11.2020, it is not clear that appellant was provided with copy of enquiry report along with supporting documents. It is also not mentioned in the show cause notice that the aforementioned documents were enclosed with show cause notice. The report submitted by enquiry team, statement and other supporting documents in the facts of the case, were necessary to enable the appellant to defend the allegations leveled against him in appropriate manner. 15. Order passed against the office bearer is also having civil consequences because the disqualification to contest panchayat election for a period of six years is automatic under sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and therefore before passing order under Section 40(1) it is expected of the authority to provide full opportunity to defend the charges/allegations against him. Depriving of proper opportunity to defend will lead to violation of the principle of natural justice. As discussed in preceding paragraphs, that there is no clarity in the proceedings recorded by the Prescribed Authority with regard to supply of enquiry report with supporting documents, copy of complaint etc. Non-examination of complainants or affected persons, in our considered opinion also results in violation of principles of natural justice in passing of the order under Section 40 (1) of Adhiniyam, 1993 against appellant. This important fact escaped consideration of learned Single Judge. 16. For the forgoing discussions, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for interference and it is accordingly set-aside. 17. As we have interdicted the impugned order on the ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice as proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the appellant, we find it appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 to restore the case Reg. No. 202011100400293 A/89 2020-21 in its file and thereafter, to pass order afresh following principles of natural justice as discussed in this order, in accordance with law.