Subrata Talukdar, J. - (1.) Party/Parties appear in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause-title.
(2.) Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed this Court records the following facts: (a) That by initial adjudication dated 25th September, 2017 in AST 327 of 2017, the Hon'ble Single Bench disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the Prescribed Authority (for short PA) to take steps in the following terms: "In such view of it the writ petition is disposed of by directing the prescribed authority to take appropriate steps in terms of filing of the no confidence motion, if not already taken, as early as possible but positively within October 12, 2017. He shall take decision in the matter including the locus of the requisitionists within 12th October, 2017." (b) Following the adjudication dated 25th September, 2017, the Respondent No. 6/Block Development Officer (for short BDO) passed an order dated 9th October, 2017 purportedly under Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (for short the 1973 Act) and proceeded to decide, inter alia, that six out of eight members of the Gram Panchayat (for short GP) in issue do not enjoy the locus to sign the Motion of No Confidence against the Pradhan, who is the present writ petitioner. The respondent No. 6/BDO accordingly recorded the compliance of the terms of the order of the Court dated 25th September, 2017 (supra) and, finally opined that the Motion of No Confidence had lost its force. (c) The matter stood thereafter transferred to the actual statutory Prescribed Authority competent to pass a decision on the disqualification of members of the GP, viz. the Respondent No. 5/the Sub Divisional Officer in issue (for short SDO), who proceeded to take up the file from the level of the First Authority, that is the BDO and, by his order of 7th December, 2017 affirmed the decision of the BDO that the six out of eight members do not enjoy the locus to bring the No Confidence Motion. The SDO, while recording the decision dated 7th December, 2017 (supra) was careful to provide his rationale for the decision in tune with Section 11 of the 1973 Act that the ground for disqualification of the six members is their absence without notice from three consecutive meetings of the GP. (d) The challenge in this writ petition is to what may be described now as a strange volte face by the SDO as reflected through his orders dated 9th November, 2017 and 22nd December, 2017, which purport to recall the disqualification of the six out of eight members and purport to further hold that not being disqualified from the membership of the GP, the six out of eight hitherto disqualified members are free to participate in the working of the GP; These two orders are now assailed by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the petitioner as being ill furnished with a reasoning befitting the occasion. (e) On behalf of the State-respondents, Mr. Siddiqui, learned Senior Government Advocate attempts to present a thin line of distinction reflected from the successive and impugned orders of the SDO (supra) as the SDO first took up the issue of disqualification of the six out of eight members in the nature of a proceeding for modification of the order of the BDO dated 9th October, 2017 (supra). Thereafter, it would be palpable from the order dated 23rd October, 2017 of the SDO that he took cognizance in terms of his own authority as the Prescribed Authority under Section 11(1)d of the 1973 Act; (f) Therefore, Mr. Siddiqui makes the further point that the final order dated 7th December,2017 should be read in the nature of an order of the original Prescribed Authority under Section 11(1)d of the Act of the SDO himself which, however, has only limited itself to use of the expression that six out of eight members are 'liable' to be disqualified but, not actually disqualified; (g) Therefore, Mr. Siddiqui takes up his next argument from the point where he leaves off, by submitting that the orders dated 9th November, 2017, 7th December, 2017 and 22nd December, 2017 of the Respondent No. 5/SDO must be read as a continuum of action where the six out of the eight members are not prohibited from exercising their duties as regular members of the GP; (h) Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents, raises the sole but important point that the order under challenge in this writ petition is appealable and, such is provided in Section 11(2) of the 1973 Act.
(3.) Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court now arrives at the following findings : (A) That the language of Section 11 of the 1973 Act is not ambiguous; (B) Section 11(1) of the 1973 Act prescribes the mandate upon the Prescribed Authority, who is the SDO, to take action for removal of a member of the GP in the following manner : " 11. Removal of member of Gram Panchayat (1).......................to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, by order remove him from office -" (C) Section 11(1) read with its sub sections (a) to (h) specify the conditions under which a show cause may ultimately result in an order of removal. (D) In the considered view of this Court, Section 11(1) of the 1973 Act does not permit the Respondent No. 5/SDO to be as tentative as disclosed through his communication dated 9th November, 2017 and 22nd December, 2017 for persuading this Court to accept that the decision of 7th December, 2017 stopped short of removal and, only fastened the 'liability' of actual removal. In the event such fallacious reasoning is to be accepted, this would be amounting to a misreading of the provisions of Section 11 which enjoin upon the SDO not the liability of removal but, on satisfaction after issuance of show cause, the power of removal itself.;