ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by respondent No. 2/Commissioner in Revision Case No. 1-A-89/2021-22 whereby appeal filed by respondent No. 5/Sarpanch has been allowed setting aside the order passed by respondent No. 4/Sub Divisional Officer (R) and respondent No. 3/Collector removing respondent No. 5 from the post of Sarpanch and disqualifying her to contest election for a period of 6 years. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner, an elected Member of Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda, Village Bundeli District Janjgir Champa filed a complaint before respondent No. 3/Collector on 31.07.2020 against respondent No. 5/Sarpanch and respondent No. 6/Secretary of the Gram Panchayat-Bundeli alleging that respondents No. 5 & 6 are misusing their power, extended undue advantage to husband of respondent No. 5/Sarpanch, misappropriated the fund allotted to Gram Panchayat and prayed for removal of Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat invoking provision under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “Adhiniyam 1993”). Upon receiving complaint, respondent No. 3/Collector directed respondent No. 4/Sub Divisional Officer (R) to conduct an inquiry in the matter. Thereafter, a report was called by respondent No. 4 from the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat Malkharoda, who, in turn, submitted report stating that Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat illegally withdrew the funds to the tune of Rs.6,20,080/-. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam 1993 was registered and a show cause notice along with the charge sheet were issued by respondent No. 4 to respondents No. 5 & 6, reply to which was submitted by respondent No. 5. Statements of complainant and other witnesses were recorded wherein they stated that amount to the tune of Rs.25,000/- was illegally withdrawn for husband of respondent No. 5/Sarpanch misusing the power. Vide order dated 25.06.2021, respondent No. 4/Sub Divisional Officer (R), the Prescribed Authority, finding serious irregularities committed in discharging the duties of the Sarpanch, her conduct to be against public interest, removed her from the post of Sarpanch invoking provision under Section 40 (1) (a) of the Adhiniyam 1993 and also disqualified her under sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Act for a period of 6 years to contest election and matter was forwarded to office of Jila Panchyat Janjgir Champa for taking necessary action against Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The said order was put to challenge before the respondent No. 3/Collector in an appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2021 affirming the order of removal of private respondents. Order passed by the Collector was further challenged in revision by respondent No. 5 before the Commissioner, Bilaspur and the revisional authority allowed the revision, set aside the order of Collector on the ground that the respondent No. 5 was not provided proper opportunity to cross-examine the witness. It is this order of Commissioner which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed contrary to provision of the Adhiniyam 1993 as also Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to “Rules of 1995”). It is contended that the impugned order is passed by the Commissioner observing that procedure prescribed under the Adhiniyam 1993 has not been duly followed as the final order has not been passed within 90 days of the issuance of show-cause notice to respondents No. 5 & 6 ; no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to respondent No. 5 as she was not given opportunity to examine witnesses in her support, which is against the principles of natural justice. It is for the first time in the revision preferred by respondent No. 5 ground of limitation as also the ground of not affording proper opportunity of hearing has been raised, which should not have been entertained by the revisional authority. He submits that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to respondents No. 5 & 6 from the stage of issuance of show cause notice till passing of final order. He lastly submits that even if the revisional Court came to the conclusion that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the delinquent-office bearer of the Panchayat, the matter should have been remanded back to the respondent No. 4/Sub Divisional Officer to pass an order afresh after granting proper opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witnesses. 4. Learned State counsel supports the order impugned. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 submits that respondent No. 5 is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bundeli and respondent No. 6 is holding the post of Secretary. Amid the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown since March 2020, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution authorizing the withdrawal of Rs. 4. Learned State counsel supports the order impugned. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 submits that respondent No. 5 is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bundeli and respondent No. 6 is holding the post of Secretary. Amid the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown since March 2020, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution authorizing the withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/- from Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Adbhar (account no. 5701021111), for distributing ration and drinking water to the needy. This action was undertaken despite opposition from 13 panchas who demanded 10% commission. Consequently, these panchas filed a complaint against respondents alleging improper withdrawal without a Gram Panchayat resolution. Inquiry committee constituted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda, concluded that the amount was withdrawn in anticipation of the Gram Panchayat’s approval and was properly utilized. Despite following the procedural steps, complaint by a member of the Janpad Panchayat led to an enquiry under Section 40 of Adhiniyam 1993, resulting in removal of respondent No. 5 from office of Sarpanch. In a revision, the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, reversed the earlier decision, taking note of the fact that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded and that impugned order was passed beyond the limitation period of 90 days after issuance of show cause notice. Respondents No. 5 & 6 have not embezzled or misappropriated any fund but only to harass, false complaint was preferred against them. Order passed by the revsional authority is a well reasoned order and hence it does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner who is an elected Member of Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda filed a complaint against respondents No. 5 & 6 i.e. Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Bundeli, alleging irregularities and misappropriation committed by them. On the basis of the said complaint, proceeding under Section 40 of the Act of 1993 was registered and initiated against the Sarpanch and Secretary and show cause notice along with charge sheet was issued to them. On the basis of the said complaint, proceeding under Section 40 of the Act of 1993 was registered and initiated against the Sarpanch and Secretary and show cause notice along with charge sheet was issued to them. After considering the inquiry report and statement of witnesses, the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. the Prescribed Authority finding charge against the respondents to be proved, has passed an order removing respondent No. 5 from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and further disqualified her for a period of 6 years to contest election. 8. Section 40 of the Adhiniyam 1993 deals with the removal of office bearers of Panchayat. It is relevant, hence, extracted below for ready reference: “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. (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. xxx xxx xxx Provided that the final order in the inquiry shall as far as possible be passed within 90 days from the date of issue of show cause notice to the concerned office-bearer. (2) A person who has been removed under sub-section (1) shall forthwith cease to be a member of any other Panchayat of which he is a member, such person shall also be disqualified for a period of six years to be elected under this Act.” 9. Under Section 40 (1) of the Adhiniyam 1993, the removal of the office bearer is only after the enquiry by the Prescribed Authority. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam 1993 only provides 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, but it is implicit in the provision that the officer-bearer who is sought to be removed will be given a fair hearing and real opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him. It is well settled law that removal of elected office -bearer from his office is a serious matter, as disqualification or removal not only affects the particular office- bearer but it affects the entire constituency as well. Therefore, the law relating to disqualification or removal has to be construed strictly. 10. The word ‘enquiry’ used in Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 is with purpose. In common parlance, the word ‘enquiry’ means the office bearer should be allowed to inspect documents, which are to be relied upon against him, and further he should have right to adduce his own evidence. Further ‘enquiry’ means enquiry before the office bearer and not behind his back. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Kailash Kumar Paramanand Dangi vs. State of M.P. and Others, MANU/MP/0253/1999 : 1999 (2) MPLJ 722 , has observed in Para-7 & 9 thus: “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. 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, MANU/SC/0121/1957 : AIR 1957 SC 882 and Khemchand v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0120/1957 : 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, MANU/UKHL/0024/1987 : (1987) AC 625: “My Lords, the so-called rules of natural justice are not engraved on tablets of stone. 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, MANU/UKHL/0024/1987 : (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 the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others, (2012) 4 SCC 407 , Their Lordships in the Supreme Court have considered that removal of elected office-bearer from office on the basis of proved misconduct is a quasi-judicial proceeding in nature and therefore the principles of natural justice are required to be given full play and strict compliance should be ensured, even in the absence of any provision providing for the same and observed as under: “30. There can also be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that removal of a duly elected member on the basis of proved misconduct is a quasi- judicial proceeding in nature. [Vide Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare] This view stands further fortified by the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Bachhitar Singh v. State of Punjab and Union of India v. H.C. Goel. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be given full play and strict compliance should be ensured, even in the absence of any provision providing for the same. Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity of defence to such an elected office-bearer. 31. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against a government servant. Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity of defence to such an elected office-bearer. 31. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against a government servant. If a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full-fledged inquiry, it is difficult to imagine how an elected office can be removed without holding a full-fledged inquiry. 32. In service jurisprudence, minor punishment is permissible to be imposed while holding the inquiry as per the procedure prescribed for it but for removal, termination or reduction in rank, a full-fledged inquiry is required otherwise it will be violative of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The case is to be understood in an entirely different context as compared to the government employees, for the reason, that for the removal of the elected officials, a more stringent procedure and standard of proof is required. xxx xxx xxx 34. In a democratic institution, like ours, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is removed by the procedure established under law. The proceedings for removal must satisfy the requirement of natural justice and the decision must show that the authority has applied its mind to the allegations made and the explanation furnished by the elected office-bearer sought to be removed.” 12. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, order- sheets of the proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam 1993 before Sub Divisional Officer/respondent No. 4 reflect that on 12.10.2020, show cause notice was directed to be issued to respondents No. 5 & 6. Reply to show cause notice was submitted on 22.10.2020. Thereafter, the case was fixed for recording evidence of complainant/petitioner on 10.11.2020. On 08.02.2021, evidence of complainant/applicant and his witnesses were recorded and the case was fixed for cross-examination of complainant and his witnesses and recording evidence of respondent/non-applicants on 10.02.2021. On 12.02.2021 cross-examination of complainant and his witnesses was done and evidence of complainant was closed. Case was fixed for recording evidence of non-applicant/ respondents on 18.02.2021. On 18.02.2021 evidence-in-chief of non-applicant/Secretary was recorded. He was cross-examined and he declared his evidence closed. 13. On 12.02.2021 cross-examination of complainant and his witnesses was done and evidence of complainant was closed. Case was fixed for recording evidence of non-applicant/ respondents on 18.02.2021. On 18.02.2021 evidence-in-chief of non-applicant/Secretary was recorded. He was cross-examined and he declared his evidence closed. 13. From perusal of the entire order-sheets, it is nowhere reflected that the case was further fixed for recording evidence of Sarpanch and to get her witnesses examined in her defence. It has also not come in the order sheet that respondent No. 5/Sarpanch stated anywhere that she does not want to examine herself and her witness. Order sheet reflects that it is only Secretary of the Gram Panchayat whose examination, cross-examination was done and thereafter he declared to close his evidence. On the very same date, case was fixed for final arguments. 14. Secretary and Sarpanch are two different persons against whom proceeding was registered as both of them have been arrayed as party respondent. Specific averment/ statement from both the non-applicants is required to be recorded that they do not want to lead any further evidence, which is absent in the proceedings initiated by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer. 15. Granting proper opportunity of hearing to the office bearer is an important facet of an inquiry to be held in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Order passed against the office bearer is 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/her. 16. Depriving of proper opportunity to defend will lead to violation of the principle of natural justice. In the present case, there is no clarity in the proceedings recorded by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer with regard to providing opportunity to lead evidence to non-applicant/Sarpanch. The important fact of not providing proper opportunity to bring evidence also escaped consideration of the Appellate Authority/ respondent No. 3 Collector. Learned revisonal Court has minutely examined all relevant aspects of the matter and rightly arrived at the conclusion of non-providing proper opportunity of hearing to the respondent-Sarpanch in the proceedings initiated by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam 1993. 17. Learned revisonal Court has minutely examined all relevant aspects of the matter and rightly arrived at the conclusion of non-providing proper opportunity of hearing to the respondent-Sarpanch in the proceedings initiated by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam 1993. 17. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is having substance that the Commissioner ought to have remitted the case back to Prescribed Authority for passing an order afresh. In the case at hand, the revisional authority came to conclusion that the order under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 passed by Prescribed Authority is erroneous because respondent No. 5 was not given opportunity to produce evidence, it is the procedure that after setting aside the order, case has to be sent to the concerned Authority/Court to proceed with the case from the stage the error was committed and to pass an order afresh following due procedure of law. The revisional authority has only set aside the order on the above discussed ground and has not passed the further order of issuing direction to the Prescribed Authority to pass an order afresh after providing opportunity to respondent No. 5 to produce evidence, to hear the arguments based on the evidence to be brought on record and pass an order afresh. 18. In the matter of Managing Director, ECII, Hyderabad and Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if proceeding is set aside on the ground of technical defect, then it is to be remitted to the concerned authority to start the proceedings afresh from the stage where the defect occurred. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 , while considering issue with respect to remand of case to the Enquiry Officer/Competent Authority has observed as under: “8. There is no quarrel with the proposition that in cases where the High Court finds the enquiry to be deficient, either procedurally or otherwise, the proper course always is to remand the matter back to the authority concerned to redo the same afresh. That Course have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the disciplinary authority or to the enquiry officer for a proper enquiry and a fresh report and order........” 20. That Course have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the disciplinary authority or to the enquiry officer for a proper enquiry and a fresh report and order........” 20. For the aforementioned reason, writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. While maintaining the order passed by the Commissioner in revision of setting aside the order passed by the Collector, case is remitted back to the Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (R)/respondent No. 4 to pass an order afresh after providing opportunity to respondent No. 5 Sarpanch to produce evidence.