Suspension of a Sarpanch may rest on prima facie material, with hearing reserved for the removal stage.

Under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, a Collector may suspend a Sarpanch on prima facie satisfaction drawn from inquiry material or a Sub-Divisional Officer's report that the Sarpanch wilfully violated the Act, abused office, or acted prejudicially to the Grama, and no hearing is required at the suspension stage. Judicial interference is limited to cases of total absence of material or non-application of mind. The record here contained allegations of abuse of office and illegal gratification, supported by the report, so the suspension was upheld. The opportunity of hearing arises at the removal stage under Section 115(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether the order suspending a Sarpanch under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 was valid on the material before the Collector, and whether the High Court was justified in quashing the suspension on the ground that the statutory prerequisites were not satisfied.

Analysis: Section 115(1) authorises the Collector to suspend a Sarpanch where, on inquiry or on a report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Collector forms the opinion that the Sarpanch has wilfully omitted or refused to carry out, or violated, the Act, rules or orders, or has abused the powers, rights and privileges vested in him, or has acted prejudicially to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama, and that further continuance in office would be detrimental. The power at the suspension stage is based on the Collector's prima facie satisfaction from the materials before him, and no hearing is required at that stage. The record showed allegations of abuse of office and illegal gratification, the Sub-Collector's report supported those allegations, and the Collector recorded that the acts were wilful. The High Court erred in mechanically relying on earlier decisions without examining the factual foundation of the present case and without appreciating that the Collector's opinion was supported by material. The respondent's opportunity of hearing arises at the stage of removal under Section 115(2), not at the stage of suspension under Section 115(1).

Conclusion: The suspension order was supported by material and the High Court was not justified in quashing it; the challenge to the Collector's action under Section 115(1) fails.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court restored the suspension order and left the merits of removal proceedings to the State Government in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 115(1), a Collector may suspend a Sarpanch on prima facie satisfaction from inquiry material or a report, and judicial interference is unwarranted unless there is total absence of material or non-application of mind; the opportunity of hearing is confined to the removal stage under Section 115(2).

---