ORDER
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The petitioner was suspended from the office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mokhaputka, Block and Tahsil Saraipali, District Raipur in exercise of the power under Section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mahasamund dated 17-7-1995. This order has been given challenge by means of the present petition seeking the relief for setting aside the show cause notice dated 19-4-1995 (Annexure-P/4) and the order of suspension dated 17-7-1995 (Annexure-P/6).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri H. B. Agrawal and the learned State Counsel, Shri S. N. Khare.
3. Counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged and the petition is being finally disposed of.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 39 of the Act the condition precedent for exercise of the power for suspension is the service of notice along with the charge-sheet to show cause for the removal from the office and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of law has not been satisfied and as such the impugned order suffers from infirmity.
5. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Act, which is relevant in the case, is extracted as below :
“(b) who has been served with a notice along with a charge sheet to show cause under this Act, for his removal from the office.”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner built-up his submission on words “served with notice along with a charge sheet” as mentioned in Clause (b) of Section 39(1) of the Act. According to him, word “alongwith” means accompanied by but it is to be a separate document and in the present case the charge sheet and the show cause notice is one composite document and so is the case of the respondents that it is a composite document. The question for consideration as cropped up is that as to what meaning is to be given to the phrase as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ratan Singh Yadav v. State of M.P. and 3 Ors., given in Writ Petition No. 4176/97 dated 2-11-1997. That was also a case of suspension under Sections 39 and 40 of the Act. In that case it has been observed by the learned Judge that to clothe the authority with powers to suspend a person, the authority must see that the person proposed to be suspended has been served with a notice along with charge sheet to show cause for his removal from the office. The charge-sheet and the show cause notice, for his removal from office, are required to be served under Section 40 of the Act which would provide a foundation in favour of the competent authority/prescribed authority that during the currency of the notice and the enquiry such person should not continue in office. In that case, as it appears from the decision relied on, Annexure-P/2 the show cause notice which was not issued either under Section 39 or Section 40 of the Act and for this the reason as has been given in the judgment is that “It says that the petitioner should show cause as to why action under Sections 39 and 40 be not taken against him.” On the above facts, the Court observed that “Section 40 talks of show cause notice as to why he should not be removed from his office. Accordingly, it was not a show cause notice along with the charge sheet as contemplated under Section 40 of the Act.
8. Section 39 of the Act does not require any show cause notice for suspension. This show cause notice for removal from the office is contemplated under Section 40 of the Act and Clause (b) of Section 39(1) of the Act only says about issuance of notice along with a charge-sheet to show cause why the person be not removed from the office.
9. Learned State Counsel submitted that in the present case the show cause notice and the charge sheet as contemplated under Section 40 of the Act is a composite one and the condition for action under Sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Act has been satisfied as the show cause notice and charge sheet, which was a composite one, was given on 19-4-1995 whereas the order of suspension (Annexure-P/6) was passed on 17-7-1995. Learned State counsel relied on a decision of this Court in Karam Singh Gawel v. State of M.P. and Ors., given in Writ Petition No. 4937/96 dated 2-4-1997 and he relied on the following passage :
“……… The intention behind the provisions is that before an office bearer is suspended he should be informed of the grounds on which the action is contemplated. The show cause notice (Annex. P/6) is a combined notice to show cause accompanied with articles of charges. There has thus been substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 39(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam.”
10. Learned State counsel also relied on meaning of the word “along with” as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. I, Third Edition, page 52. Though the dictionaries are not the dictates of the statutes but sometime the aid is taken from the dictionary for finding out the meaning which may advance the purpose of provision of law. The word “alongwith” has been given many meanings, i.e. in company with, together with, in conjunction with and word “along” is given meaning whether within, or by the side of.
11. What is to be seen is the object behind the provision. The object behind the provision of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Act is to avoid the arbitrariness in the action on the part of the authorities and this rider is placed with the purpose that the authorities must be satisfied. A show cause notice is required to be given for removal of a person from the office by having recourse to proceedings under Section 40 of the Act and it has been made the condition precedent for exercise of power under Sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Act so to detract the authorities from acting arbitrarily.
12. So far as the phrase as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is obvious and it is not necessary that both the documents must necessarily be separate. What is essential is that there must be a charge sheet which can satisfy that there is a case for removal of the person from the office. If it would have been a show cause notice for suspension as well and if the requirement of law would have been for show cause notice for suspension as well then two things could have been emerged and two proceedings would be under different provisions of law and of different nature and having different consequences and also different reply. In that event in one he has to reply only to the material for establishing that it is not a case for placing him under suspension and in the other case the person to reply that it is not a case where the petitioner can be removed from the office but here it is not so. Here it is only the power of the suspension is not rider by any condition except the condition that it must be during the pendency of the proceedings which is made a condition precedent for exercise of power that notice along with charge sheet to show for removal must have preceded the order of suspension.
13. Next learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of suspension is even bad in law as it has failed to satisfy the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act as the order has not been confirmed by the State Government within 90 days from the date of passing of the order by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
It is not appropriate to dilate on this point as in the petition, the petitioner has not canvassed anything about this lacuna in the impugned order. What has been stated in the petition is only that the suspension of the petition is bad because no confirmation of suspension has yet been served on the petitioner. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 39 service of confirmation of order of suspension is not obligatory on the part of the State Government as a report is made to the State Government and the State Government is supposed to act on the report and to pass the order within 90 days from the date of receipt of the report. If the State Government for the reason whatsoever fails to confirm the order of suspension within 90 days from the date of receipt of the report, then the fiction to come in play and the fiction is that in that event the order of suspension shall be deemed to have been vacated. But since the petitioner has not pleaded material in the case, expression of any opinion on the merit may prejudice the case of the petitioner if he wants to challenge the order of suspension on this ground or any other grounds consequent upon the approval of the order of suspension by the State Government.
14. In view of the above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order would not prejudice the cause of the petitioner if the petitioner wants to challenge the proceedings subsequent to the stage of confirmation of the suspension order by the State Government. Under the circumstances no order as to costs.