Ashok Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

L'Vvy /Unp W 0C"

/2013 W. P. (C) NO.

Ashok Kumar Sahu, PETITIONER S/o Vishnu Ram Sahu, 46 years, Sarpanch (Removed) R/o Village Jawaibandha, Post - Khola, Tahsil 8a RS. - Abhanpur, District - Raipur- (C.G.)

VERSUS

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Panchayat Rural Development RESPONDENTS :

1 .

Department, Mantralaya, Post P.S.

- Rakhi, Raipur, Civil Revenue District-Raipur-(C.G.) \J Go ''£a-._33.

N The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Post - Kutehari, P'S.

- Gole Bazar, Raipur, Civil 8L Revenue District - Raipur-(C.G.) The Additional Collector, Raipur Post - Kutchari, P'S. - Gole Bazar, Raipur, Civil Revenue District - Raipur-(C.G.).

S.D.O.

Cum Prescribed Authority, Arang, Abhanpur, Post 85 P.S.

- Abhanpur, Civil 8L Revenue Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) Purshottam Sahu, S/o Puna Ram Sahu, 48 years, R/o Jawaibandha, Post - Khola, RS.

Tahsil - Abhanpur, Civil 8r, Revenue District ~ Raipur-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 85 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (C) No. 1806 of 2013 PETITIONER Ashok Kumar Sahu

Versus

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Shri Keshav Dewangan and Shri Harsha! Chouhan, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Adi! Minhaj, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri C.K.

Sahu, counsel for the No.5.

3,:_______ __ SINGLE BENC HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (06/01/2015) Petitioner assailed legality validity of order dated 30/09/2013 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division affirming the appellate order passed by the Additionai Collector, Raipur on 16/07/2012 original order passed by Sub Officer, ArangAbhanpur on 20/03/2012 directing removal petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jawaibandha, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur in exercise powers under Section Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, 'Adh/'niyam').

2.

On a complaint made by respondent No.

Lokpal MANREGA, Raipur registered proceeding against the petitioner. After a duly conducted enquiry, in which the petitioner also participated, the said Lokpai made a report on 05/07/2011 (Annexure R-1) petitioner and the Rozgar Sahayak of the Gram Panchayat are involved in preparing forged muster roll and showing release of amount of wages to person who have not actually worked in different works undertaken by the'Gram Panchayat.

Lokpai recommended action against petitioner but the kind of action or the authority who would initiate such

action was not specified. When nothing moved further, the respondent No.

made a complaint/appHcation before Sub Officer (Revenue) under Section 4O Adhiniyam seeking petitioner's remOval from office.

In this proceeding also petitioner was afforded proper opportunity hearing including opportunity to adduce evidence and thereafter the impugned order Annexure P/1 been passed against him.

"t 3.

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit Sub Officer (Revenue) should have summoned an independent report on the issue rather than acting on the report of Lokpal MANREGA and thus there is violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 4O of the Adhiniyam. He would also submit that the respondent No.5 has encroached a piece of government land in the village for which petitioner initiated action, therefore, false complaint has been lodged by the said'respondent.

4'

- Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 5 would oppose the prayer made in this writ petition. 5.

recorded by Lokpal MANREGA is not under challenge before this Court.

Section Adhiniyam no where makes it mandatory for prescribed authority to call for an independent report nor does it prohibit making use of a pre-existing repo'rt made by any statutory authority or any other agency.

What Section 4O of the Adhiniyam requires is that the prescribed authority may remove an office bearer of a Gram Panchayat after making such enquiry as it may deem fit.

lt is not elaborated as to whether making

/.

,, f... W f LE) "w"

enqgiry would require summoning of a report. Thus the requirement of making enquiry to be understood in ordinary legal parlance.

Therefore, the only requirement is that while conducting such enquiry the prescribed authority shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the conoern ofhce bearer which includes informing the office bearer of the charges which he would be required to meet, proper time to submit reply and_\thereafter, if the evidence is led by the parties, opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. 6.

'

lt is not the case of the petitioner that the prescribed authority has violated principles natural justice or no enquiry worth name been conducted in matter.

lt is settled writ Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by statutory or quasi judicial authority unless said is outrageously perverse and defies logic common sense.

There is nothing in record to indicate that the finding against the petitioner is perverse.

Even if, respondent No. 5 has encroached some part of government land in the village, that does not validate illegal action petitioner.

Panchayat or the concerned revenue officer may initiate action against the respondent No. 5 but only on that count, the order under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam cannot be fauited with, 7.

ln the opinion of this Court, the concurrent order passed by the three subordinate authorities namely Sub Officer, Additional Collector and the Commissioner does not call for any interference. 8.

V The writ petition being sans substance it is dismissed.

Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge