Pramila Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1255 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pramila Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 15 July, 2025

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P.(C) No.9149 of 2025

             Pramila Sahu                           ...         Petitioner
                                            Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate
                                  along with Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate

                                       -Versus-

             State of Odisha & others               ... Opposite parties
                                                    Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC


                        CORAM:
                          MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                        ORDER

15.07.2025

Order No.

04. 1. Heard Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned decision by order dated 18th March, 2025 as at Annexure-4 of opposite party No.2 and further to direct opposite party No.3 to allow her to hold office of Sarpanch, Bharsuja Gram Panchayat on the grounds stated therein.

3. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that due process has not been followed before placing the petitioner under suspension vide Annexure-4 and

refers to Section 115(1) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The submission is that consequent upon the FIR lodged and registration of Agalpur P.S. Case No.174 of 2024, a copy of which is at Annexure-1, an enquiry was followed. The further submission is that the enquiry report dated 12th August, 2024 as at Annexure-2 implicated an Ex-PEO and not the petitioner, but thereafter, she was placed under suspension by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 115(2) of the Act. It is contended by Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate that reasonable opportunity respond was not allowed to the petitioner and therefore, such an order of suspension as per Annexure-4 is not legally tenable. It is claimed that the petitioner was never confronted with the enquiry report i.e. Annexure-2 and hence, the decision placing her under suspension vide order dated 18th March, 2025 by the State Government is liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued.

4. No counter affidavit is filed by the State, however, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State justifies the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 in view of the allegations made regarding financial irregularities committed with the involvement of the petitioner, but before that, a request was from him received for an adjournment to file the reply referring to the letter dated 22nd April, 2025 received from the Government by the Office of the learned Advocate General, Odisha. But having regard to the fact that there has been inordinate delay and the State was allowed reasonable time to respond, considering the submission of Mr.

Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is under suspension for quite some time, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the hearing but to dispose of the wit petition by the following order.

5. The impugned order dated 18th March, 2025 i.e. Annexure-4 is under challenge. According to Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, the exercise of power under Section 115(2) of the Act is in accordance with law and rightly, the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of further action. It is reiterated that there is serious allegation of financial irregularities and therefore, the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 115(2) of the Act placed the petitioner under suspension after receiving the report of the Collector concerned.

6. In course of hearing, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner cited the following decisions, such as, Sarat Chandra Mohanty Vrs. State of Orissa and others 2016 SCC OnLine Ori 531; (Smt.) Manjubala Pradhan Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2020(I) OLR 720 and Rajiv Kumar Parida Vrs. State of Odisha & others 2020(Supp.) OLR 273 of this Court besides the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh and another Vrs. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government and another (2009) 16 SCC 308 to contend that the petitioner should have been allowed to respond with a show cause before the impugned action vide Annexure-4.

7. In Sarat Chandra Mohanty (supra), this Court in a similar case with an action in terms of Section 115(2) of the Act held and concluded that any such action is required to follow due procedure with the compliance of the cumulative conditions stipulated in sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Act. Similarly, in (Smt.) Manjubala Pradhan (supra), no reason was assigned while placing a Sarpanch under suspension and hence, it was interfered with. According to Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, the decision in (Smt.) Manjubala Pradhan (supra) stood confirmed in Rajiv Kumar Parida (supra) by a Division Bench of this Court. On a reading of the decision in the case of Rajiv Kumar Parida, the Court finds that while referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh (supra) held and concluded that the preconditions for suspension are to be satisfied while dealing with a matter as per Section 115 of the Act. Since the precondition as stipulated in Section 51(1)(a) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was not satisfied, the Apex Court interfered with the order of suspension and held it to be invalid.

8. For better appreciation, the relevant extracts of sub- section (1) and (2) of Section 115 of the Act are reproduced hereinbelow.

"115. Suspension and removal of Sarpanch, Naib- Sarpanch and Member:

(1) If 1(1) If the State Government, on the basis of a report of the Collector or the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, or suo motu are of the opinion that circumstances exist to show that the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or violates the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made

thereunder or abuses the powers, rights and privileges vested in him or acts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama and that the further continuance of such person in Office would be detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat or the inhabitants of the Grama, they may after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, remove him from the Office of Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be.

(2) The State Government may, pending initiation of the proceeding on the basis of their opinion under Sub-Section (1), by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, from the Office."

9. On a proper reading of the above provisions, it is made to suggest that the concerned authority after providing the Sarpanch, Naib Sarpanch or any member of the G.P., a reasonable opportunity of showing cause is to take action. It is contended by Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State that the preconditions is required to be fulfilled at the time of removal of Sarpanch but in view of the provisions of Section 115 of the Act and the case laws relied on and referred to hereinabove, the conclusion of the Court is that any such enquiry report as at Annexure-2 followed by the impugned action i.e. Annexure-4, a satisfaction is to be reached at with a definite opinion formed. It is made to reveal from the pleadings on record that the petitioner was supplied a copy of the enquiry report dated 12 th August, 2024 and at last, it was followed by an order of suspension dated 18th March, 2025 at Annexure-4 and therefore, in view of discussion hereinabove, such a decision of the State Government cannot be justified on mere reading of the same revealing no reasons assigned with the judicial application mind clearly with

an opinion formed followed by the conclusion, hence, the same is liable to be set at naught. Furthermore, such is the view of the Court keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an elected representative and before any such drastic action considering the report inculpating an Ex-PEO, there was a need for strict compliance of the provisions of the Act and with a correct approach and appreciation with a definite conclusion about the satisfaction reached at to place her under suspension, which is conspicuously absent and not revealed from Annexure-4.

10. Accordingly, it is ordered.

11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned decision vide order dated 18 th March, 2025 at Annexure-4 is set aside with a direction to opposite party No.3 to immediately allow the petitioner to function in the capacity of Sarpanch of the G.P. soon after receiving a copy of the Court‟s order.

12. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok