Challenge to a Sections 39 and 40 show-cause notice was held premature without participation in removal proceedings.

The appellant, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mahant, challenged a show-cause notice issued under Sections 39 and 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, proposing proceedings for his removal and containing five charges.

He contended that the notice reflected non-application of mind and that the statutory ingredients, including the requirement concerning a pending criminal proceeding under Section 39(1)(a), were not satisfied.

The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the notice and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to decide the proceedings in accordance with law after granting the appellant a full opportunity of hearing and permitting oral and documentary evidence.

The appellant consequently preferred the intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the show-cause notice issued under Sections 39 and 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 was liable to be quashed for alleged non-application of mind and absence of the statutory conditions relied upon by the appellant.

2. Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice was premature when the appellant had not submitted his explanation or participated in the statutory proceedings.

Section 39(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 empowers the prescribed authority to suspend a Panchayat office-bearer against whom a show-cause notice, accompanied by charges for removal, has been issued.

Section 40 governs the removal of office-bearers of a Panchayat.

A challenge to a show-cause notice is ordinarily premature where the statutory authority has initiated proceedings, the notice discloses charges, and the affected person has an effective opportunity to submit a response and adduce evidence; judicial interference is therefore unwarranted at the notice stage in the absence of demonstrated jurisdictional illegality.

The Court examined the notice and found that it contained five charges and was issued with the intention of initiating proceedings under Sections 39 and 40 for the appellant’s removal.

Section 39(1)(b) expressly contemplated action where a removal-related show-cause notice with charges had been served.

Since the appellant had not submitted his explanation or participated in the proceedings, the challenge to the notice was premature.

The Single Judge had adequately protected the appellant’s procedural rights by directing the competent authority to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and by granting him a full hearing, including the right to produce oral and documentary evidence.

The Division Bench therefore found no legal infirmity in either the notice or the Single Judge’s order.

It upheld the non-interference with the show-cause notice issued under Sections 39 and 40 of the Adhiniyam and left the appellant to participate in the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was required to decide the matter in accordance with law after affording a proper opportunity of hearing.