The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 04. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9242 of 2025 Nandini Meher …. Petitioner Mr. Trilochan Nanda, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. Swain, AGA Ms. P.S. Mohanty, Advocate for Intervener CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the State. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order as at Annexure-1 of opposite party No.2 on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected representative but she has been placed under suspension by the order of opposite party No.2 dated 19th March, 2025. The further submission is that no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner, hence, therefore, such an order of suspension is not legally tenable. Page 1 of 5 4. The contention is that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the order of suspension against the petitioner and in a mechanical manner, opposite party No.2 passed the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 and hence, the same is liable to be interfered with. In support of such contention, Mr. Nanda, learned counsel relies on orders of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.9149 and 16166 of 2025 dated 15th July, 2025 and 19th June, 2025 respectively besides the case laws, such as, Nutan Kumar Rout Vrs. State of Orissa and others 111 (2011) CLT 345, Amiya Kumar Pani Vrs. State of Orissa and others 112(2011) CLT 529, Kapala Bulu Vrs. State of Orissa and others MANU/OR/1293/2022, Basudev Dandasena Vrs. State of Orissa and others 2009(1) CLR (SC) 278 and finally, Pramod Kumar Tripathy Vrs. State of Orissa and others 2009 (2) CLR (SC) 402 to contend that such a decision of opposite party No.2 without any clear opinion and conclusion reached at cannot be sustained in law. 5. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner and other are involved in misappropriation of Govt. fund and hence, an FIR has been lodged and refers to the counter affidavit, while claiming so. The further submission is that opposite party No.2 did not err or commit any wrong or illegality, while placing the petitioner under suspension, hence, rightly, the powers conferred under Section 115(2) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 Page 2 of 5 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is exercised and therefore, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 is not to be disturbed. 6. Admittedly, a criminal case is registered pursuant to a report dated 15th October, 2024 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Boisinga in G.R. Case No.508 of 2024 as revealed from the counter affidavit of opposite party Nos.3 and 6. It is claimed that in view of the misappropriation alleged against the petitioner and others, the FIR was lodged and it was consequent upon an inventory held with a report received from the concerned Tahasildar. The contention of Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no order of conviction and hence, it is not a bar in terms of Section 25(1)(g) of the Act. That apart, the submission is that opposite party No.2 has not considered the plea of the petitioner with a show cause called for and mechanically directed the suspension followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1. 7. In Basudev Dandasena (supra), it has been held by this Court that reasons are to be assigned while placing a Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch under suspension exercising power under Section 115(1) of the Act. In Kapala Bulu (supra), a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court further held that while exercising powers under Section 25 of the Act, the competent authority is not to act mechanically. In Amiya Kumar Pani (supra), it is held by the Court that allegations are to be looked into before any such order of suspension passed by the authority concerned Page 3 of 5 as per the Act. In Nutan Kumar Rout (supra), it is concluded that reasons are to be assigned while taking action as per the provisions of the Act even while placing a Sarpanch or a Naib Sarpanch under suspension. 8. It is settled law that any such action by the State Government in terms of the Act shall have to be according to the provisions of Section 115 of the Act. On a bare reading of the impugned order dated 9th March, 2025 at Annexure-1, the Court finds that opposite party No.2 has not considered the allegations in detail without any opinion being formed before directing the suspension against the petitioner. It is alleged that the allegation of misappropriation of fund is against a PEO and other officials as it is informed to the Court by Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Without expressing anything on merits of the alleged claim but having regard to the fact that opposite party No.2 passed the order of the suspension without discussing the reasons therefor and in a mechanical manner, the Court is of the view that in the light of the case laws discussed hereinabove, it would be just and proper to direct reconsideration of the decision taking into account the plea of the petitioner as the same would rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary the impugned order as at Annexure-1 is Page 4 of 5 hereby set aside with the matter remanded back for a decision by opposite party No.2 for reconsidering suspension of the petitioner and thereafter, to pass necessary order according to the provisions of the Act and in case, the decision is not found adverse, to allow her to resume in duty as the office bearer of the concerned GP without delay issuing a notification in that regard thereby concluding the entire exercise at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, the interim arrangement shall continue. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 22-Jul-2025 11:22:25 Page 5 of 5