ORDER : 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 25.9.2023 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer (R) -cum- Prescribed Authority has passed the order of removal of the petitioer from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 40 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiiyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected sarpanch of village Panchayat Malda, Janpad Panchayat Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara. Petitioner was surprised to know that respondent No.3 has passed an order of her removal from the post of Sarpanch without issuing any show-cause notice or giving opportunity of hearing to her. He contended that under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 the office bearer can be removed only after enquiry to be conducted by the Prescribed Authority and before passing order of removal, the office bearer has to be given an opportunity to show cause as to why he or she be not removed. No such proceeding is drawn before passing the order impugned. He contended that from the documents placed on record it is apparent that based on newspaper report relating to death of 3 to 4 cattle kept in the building of gram panchayat, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by respondent No.4, who issued notice to the petitioner to submit her explanation. Petitioner submitted her explanation/reply. Based on report submitted by respondent No.4, the order impugned, Annexure P-1 is passed, which is per se illegal and not sustainable. He submits that enquiry as contemplated under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 is mandatory, the order of removal of petitioner is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Learned State Counsel would submit that on coming to know about the death of 3-4 cattle from newspaper report, the Prescribed Authority took cognizance of the same, constituted a team to enquire into, which is headed by respondent No.4. The said team submitted its report and based on the enquiry report, the order impugned is passed and therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned is passed without there being any material against the petitioner or without affording him opportunity of hearing. 4. The said team submitted its report and based on the enquiry report, the order impugned is passed and therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned is passed without there being any material against the petitioner or without affording him opportunity of hearing. 4. On a query being put by this Court to the learned State Counsel as to what proceeding was drawn by respondent No.3 before passing the impugned order, she submits that along with reply entire proceedings drawn by the Sub Divisional Officer is filed and perusal of which would show that respondent No.3 directed for constitution of a team for conducting enquiry. The Enquiry Officer issued notice to the petitioner upon which petitioner submitted reply and based on the enquiry report dated 24.9.2023 & 25.9.2023, the order impugned is passed. However, she fairly submits that from the proceedings placed before this Court it is not reflecting that any case is registered against the petitioner. She herself examined record of the proceeding but she did not find any order sheet showing registration of case against the petitioner. She submits that whatever documents available in this regard have been filed along with reply. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that pursuant to the direction issued by respondent No.3, respondent No.4 along with other members initiated the enquiry, issued show-cause notice to the petitioner and others and based on reply submitted by the petitioner and other persons, submitted the report before the respondent No.3 and thereby complied with the direction issued by respondent No.3. He further submits that pursuant to the direction issued by respondent No.3, the enquiry was conducted by the officials of Janpad Panchayat and the report was forwarded to respondent No.3 under the signature of respondent No.4. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. In view of submission made by learned counsel for respective parties, in particular submission made by learned State Counsel based on record of respondent No.3 of removal of the petitioner, undisputedly the Prescribed Authority (respondent No.3) neither registered case against petitioner nor issued notice to the petitioner providing opportunity of hearing, seeking her explanation before passing of the order Annexure P-1 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. 8. Provision under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, which is relevant and extracted herein below for immediate perusal:- “40. 8. Provision under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, which is relevant and extracted herein below for immediate perusal:- “40. Removal of office-bearers of Panchayat. - (1) The State Government or the prescribed authority may after such enquiry as it may deem fit to make at any time, remove an office-bearer,- (a) if he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or (b) if his continuance in office is undesirable in the interest of the public : Provided 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. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section "Misconduct" shall include,- (a) any action adversely affecting,- (i) the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; or (ii) the harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of State transcending religious, linguistic, regional, caste or sectional diversities; or (iii) the dignity of women; or (b) gross negligence in the discharge of the duties under this Act; [(c) the use of position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any relative in the Panchayat or any action for extending any pecuniary benefits to any relative, such as giving out any type of lease, getting any work done through them in the Panchayat by an office-bearer of Panchayat.” 9. Above provision provides for enquiry for removing an office bearer and proviso to Section 40 (1) provides for opportunity to show-cause why he should not be removed from his office. Under Section 40, power for removal of office bearer is with the State Government or the Prescribed Authority. No notice was issued by the Prescribed Authority i.e. respondent No.3. Opportunity to show-cause is made mandatory. 10. Identical issue came up for consideration in case of Kailash Kumar Parmanand Dangi vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in 1999 (2) MPLJ 722 , it was observed as under:- “7. Removal and disqualification of an office-bearer of a Panchayat under Section 40 of the Act on the ground of misconduct is not less injurious and stigmatic as the removal of a civil servant under Article 311 of the Constitution of India or a workman under the industrial law. Removal and disqualification of an office-bearer of a Panchayat under Section 40 of the Act on the ground of misconduct is not less injurious and stigmatic as the removal of a civil servant under Article 311 of the Constitution of India or a workman under the industrial law. Article 311 also envisages an 'inquiry' in which the delinquent employee is informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The celebrated rule of audi alteram partem has been incorporated therein. What principles of natural justice should be applied depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Broadly stated a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them. Union of India v. T. R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882 and Khemchand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 . 9. H. W. R. Wade in his book on Administrative Law, 7th Edition at page 521 has quoted a passage in the speech of Lord Bridge in the House of Lords in Lloyd v. Mcmahon, (1987) AC 625 : "My Lords, the so-called rules of natural justice are not engraved on tablets of stone. To use the phrase which better expresses the underlying concept, what the requirements of fairness demand when any body, domestic, administrative or judicial, has to make a decision which will affect the rights of individuals depends on the character of the decision-making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the statutory or other frame-work in which it operates. In particular, it is well-established that when a statute has conferred on any body the power to make decisions affecting individuals, the courts will not only require the procedure prescribed by the statute to be followed, but will readily imply so much and no more to be introduced by way of additional procedural safeguards as will ensure the attainment of fairness." 11. In case of Raja Raj Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in 2000 (1) MPHT 490 , the Court has observed as under:- “.....It is submitted by Mr. In case of Raja Raj Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in 2000 (1) MPHT 490 , the Court has observed as under:- “.....It is submitted by Mr. Bhatti, on a perusal of the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority, it is perceptible that the persons who made complaints against the petitioner were not examined by the prescribed authority and the petitioner could not have cross-examined them but, unfortunately the statements of the said witnesses have been considered by the Collector and been utilised against the petitioner. On a perusal of the record, it is noticed that this fact is borne out on record and the learned counsel for the State is not in a position to dispute the same. Quite apart from that, it is noticeable that the petitioner's application for supply of documents had not been properly construed by the prescribed authority, as the petitioner was supplied only the inquiry report but not the materials/other documents. An interesting feature which cannot be lost sight of is that the appellate authority has called for these documents by order dated 8-4-99 but it does not appear that the petitioner was supplied the said documents. It has been ruled in the case of Bansmani (supra), the documents which are sought to be utilised against the holder of the office, should be supplied to him so that he can have fair chance to rebut the same. As the factual matrix indicates the materials collected against the petitioner were not supplied to him and further the petitioner was not granted sufficient opportunity to produce his evidence to rebut the allegations made against him, I am of the considered view, the order passed by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are vulnerable being violative of principles of natural justice as well as being against the basic concept of adjudicating process and accordingly, the said contained in Annexures P-12 and P-18 are hereby quashed....” 12. In case of Smt. Kamti Bai Manglu Ram vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in ILR 2018 CG 417, relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sadashiv H. Patil vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 200 SC 3044, this Court has observed as under:- “15. In case of Smt. Kamti Bai Manglu Ram vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in ILR 2018 CG 417, relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sadashiv H. Patil vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 200 SC 3044, this Court has observed as under:- “15. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, it is quite apparent that upon receipt of preliminary enquiry report which the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) got conducted beyond the back of the petitioner and which was submitted on 16-6-2016, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after getting reply from the petitioner, straightway, the order of removal was passed. In fact, this is a case where no enquiry was done and mainly relying upon the report of ex parte preliminary enquiry, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. In order to establish the charge alleged against the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Officer (Reveue) has examined none and thus, no W.P.(C) No.2675/2017 opportunity of hearing much less reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner to refute the said charges. Thus, the order of removal has been passed without following the mandate of Section 40 (1) of the Act of 1993 and therefore it suffers from illegality as well as the principles of natural have been followed in its full breach and such illegality and non-compliance of audi alteram partem remain unnoticed by the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner as well.” 13. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, from the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties; the pleadings available in record of writ petition i.e. contentions of petitioner as well as documents available in with petition, it is prima facie appearing that the Prescribed Authority without registering the case against petitioner, without conducting proper enquiry and without affording opportunity to show-cause to the petitioner, only on the basis of enquiry report submitted by respondent No.4, has passed the impugned order of removal of petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. It is for the Prescribed Authority to conduct an enquiry himself, give opportunity to show-cause to the office bearer before passing an order of removal in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. It is for the Prescribed Authority to conduct an enquiry himself, give opportunity to show-cause to the office bearer before passing an order of removal in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. In case at hand, no proceeding is drawn as envisaged under Section 40, and therefore, the order Annexure P-1 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, it is bad in law and not sustainable. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to pass order afresh, if so desire, following due process of law. 15. Certified copy as per rules.