Disqualification order set aside where the Collector denied an effective hearing and opportunity to adduce evidence.

The petitioner, an elected Ward Member and Naib-Sarpanch of Ward No. 8 of Dunguripali Gram Panchayat, was proceeded against under Sections 25(1)(v) and 26 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, on the allegation that she had three children and was therefore disqualified from holding office.

The third child was alleged to have been born on 04.04.2024. The petitioner denied being the biological mother of the child and contended that the hospital records had mistakenly identified her as the mother, whereas the child was born to her sister-in-law, Pinki.

The Collector and District Magistrate, Balangir directed the petitioner to file her objection, which she submitted on 20.08.2026.

On 03.09.2026, the date fixed for hearing, the Collector passed an order disqualifying her, primarily relying on official reports and documents, without affording her or her counsel an effective opportunity to be heard, lead evidence, or examine witnesses.

Whether the Collector violated Section 26(2) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 and the principles of natural justice by passing the disqualification order without effectively hearing the petitioner after receipt of her objection?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to produce evidence, examine witnesses, and address discrepancies in the official materials relied upon against her?

Whether the disqualification order dated 03.09.2026 was liable to be set aside and the proceeding remitted for fresh adjudication?

The Court applied Section 26(2) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, which requires the Collector, while determining whether a Sarpanch, Naib-Sarpanch, or member is disqualified, to conduct such enquiry as necessary and give the concerned person an opportunity of being heard.

Section 26(3) provides that a disqualification decision takes effect only upon publication on the Collector’s notice board.

The Court relied on the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of a meaningful hearing where disputed facts and conflicting official records arise.

It followed Sri Gouranga Chandra Padhi v. State of Orissa, 2005 (Supp.) OLR 948, which held that where public documents contradict one another, the affected person must be supplied the relevant materials and permitted to produce evidence and cross-examine witnesses where necessary.

The Court also referred to Banamali Panda v. State of Orissa, 2004 (II) OLR 515; Smt. Pabani Gajendra v. State of Orissa, 2005 (II) OLR 686; and Muktamanjari Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 2010 (II) OLR 473.

The Court found that the petitioner had raised a specific factual defence regarding the erroneous identification of the child’s mother and had pointed to discrepancies in the hospital and administrative records.

Although she had filed her objection, the Collector passed the order on the first date fixed for hearing thereafter, without the order disclosing that the petitioner or her counsel had been heard.

The existence of conflicting records and the petitioner’s request to rely on family members and five Ward Members made a further enquiry and an opportunity to adduce evidence material to a fair determination.

Mere representation through counsel and filing of a written objection did not satisfy the statutory requirement of an effective opportunity of hearing in these circumstances.

Applying the rule in Sri Gouranga Chandra Padhi, the Court held that the Collector had acted hastily and had failed to comply with Section 26(2) and the principles of natural justice.

The Court expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the alleged disqualification.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Collector on 01.10.2026, and the enquiry was directed to be completed preferably by the end of December 2026.

Until a fresh decision was taken, the petitioner was permitted to continue as Naib-Sarpanch and exercise the powers of that office.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the alleged disqualification.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.