Gajraj Sonwani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7099 of 2019

1. Gajraj Sonwani, S/o - Shri Mohar Sai Sonwani, Aged About 47 Years, Occupation Services, Posted As Secretary At Gram Panchayat Lakhanpur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector, Surguja (Ambikapur), District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh

3. The Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Lakhanpur, District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06.09.2019

1. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Jaipur, Janpad Panchayat-Lakhanpur to Janpad Panchayat, Batoli.

2. The sole ground that the petitioner has raised is that, he is the office bearer of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Sachiv Sangh, District: Surguja.

3. According to the petitioner, he is the Secretary of the said Sangh. Let the petitioner make representation in this regard supported with all relevant record, documents in support of his claim within a period of 15 days to the Respondent No. 2, who in turn is directed to get the

-2aspect verified, whether the petitioner in-fact is the officer bearer or not and it is expected that the representation of the petitioner be decided within a further period of 45 days in accordance with the provisions applicable, particularly in respect of office bearers. In case, if it is found that the petitioner is not the office bearer and has used documents only for the sake of getting orders from this Court.

4. The Respondent No. 02 is also directed to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, for the said action on the part of his misconduct of making use of false and fabricated documents, which was being produced before the High Court for misleading the High Court for the purpose of obtaining relief from the Court. 5.

Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) shall not be given effect to, so far as the petitioner is concerned.

6.

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul