Enquiry Under Section 40 of Panchayat Act Cannot Be Quashed if Proper Opportunity of Hearing Is Provided

The petitioner, a Sarpanch, challenged a Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2026 and the subsequent proceedings initiated against him under Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.

The petitioner alleged that the notice was served via mobile phone without an attached charge-sheet, violating principles of natural justice.

Though the petitioner submitted preliminary objections on 07.04.2026, the enquiry officer proceeded to record evidence without first deciding on those objections.

The State contended that the enquiry report had been supplied, the petitioner had responded, and the proceedings were ongoing with adequate opportunity for hearing provided.

1. Whether the initiation of removal proceedings under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam was illegal due to the alleged non-supply of a formal charge-sheet and improper service of notice.

2. Whether the deferment of a decision on preliminary objections while proceeding to the evidence stage constitutes a violation of the procedure established by law.

Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, which governs the removal of office-bearers.

Babita Lilhare v. Surendra Rana & Ors. (2004) to establish that a Sarpanch cannot be removed without the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Mango Bai v. State of M.P. (2003) to hold that a preliminary or secret enquiry alone is insufficient for removal.

Harishankar Patel v. State of M.P. (1999) to emphasize that while a show cause notice and charge-sheet are required under Section 39(1)(b), the substance of the opportunity provided is more relevant than its specific form.

The Court examined the procedural record (Annexure-P/4) and found that the petitioner had appeared before the designated authority, requested the enquiry report, and received it.

The Court noted that the authority had not rejected them but had merely deferred the decision to be handled separately while continuing with the evidentiary stage.

The Court reasoned that since the proceedings were still underway and the petitioner was actively participating, there was no evidence of "arbitrary" action or a "fait accompli" removal.

The court concluded the process followed was objective, fair, and bona fide, providing the petitioner with adequate opportunity to defend himself as required by the precedents cited.

The Court dismissed the petition but clarified that the respondent authority is expected to continue providing a fair opportunity of hearing and decide the matter strictly in accordance with the law.