Civil Appeal No 3966 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 2011987 of the High Court of Orissa of OJC No 3300 of 1986
AK Panda for the Appellant
J
R Das for the Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J Special leave granted
Arguments heard
The respondent AC Jena was a Sarpanch of Padanipal Grama Panchayat Orissa
He was removed from the office under section 115 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act 1964 by the order of the State Government petitioner No I before us dated 241086 as contained in Annexure D to the special leave petition which has been quashed by the impugned judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 2011987 in o
Jc No 33086
The relevant provisions of section 115 of the Act read as follows 1151
If on the report of the Sub Divisional 179 Officer the Collector is of the opinion that circumstances exist to show that the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or violates the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder or abuses the powers rights and privileges vested in him or acts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama and that the further continuance of such person in office would be detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat or the inhabitants of the Grama he may by order suspend the Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch as the case may be from office and report the matter to the State Government
2 The State Government on the report of the Collector under sub section 1 shall or if the State Government themselves are of the opinion that the circumstances specified in the said sub section exist in relation to a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch then on their own motion may after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause remove him from the office of Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch as the case may be
3              4 A Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch on removal from office under sub section 2 shall also cease to be a member of the Grama Panchayat and such person shall not be eligible for election as a member for a period not exceeding four years as the State Government may specify
5             
The Collector Cuttack petitioner No 2 before us received a report Appendix to Annexure A from the Sub Divisional officer Kendra Pada stating the facts and circumstances which clearly satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 115 of the Act for the suspension and removal of the respondent
The Collector Cuttack thereupon suspended the Sarpanch by his order dated 2441985 Annexure A and while so doing he expressly mentioned that on going through the 180 report of the Sub divisional officer he was satisfied that the Sarpanch acted in a manner as detailed in the Appendix and his further continuance in office would be detrimental to the interest of the said Grama Panchayat as also of the inhabitants of the Grama Accordingly a notice as required by sub section 2 was served on the Sarpanch who filed his detailed reply and was also personally heard
His explanation however was not considered satisfactory and an order dated 24101986 bearing No 19032GP was passed removing him from the office of the Sarpanch
A second notification of the same date bearing No 19039GP was issued under sub section 4
The Sarpanch in these circumstances moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
The High Court at the stage of admission by a short order quashed the notification issued against the petitioner on the sole and simple ground that the order does not specify one of the mandatory requirements ie his further continuance in the office would be detrimental to the interest of the Gram Panchayat or the inhabitants of the Gram
Elaborating the point the High Court observed as follows 
One of the circumstances mentioned in sub section  I is just indicated above
As the existence of the circumstances mentioned in sub section 1 is condition precedent for passing an order of removal by the State Government its absence makes the order wholly illegal and without jurisdiction   
As has been stated earlier the Collector while passing the order of suspension under sub section 1 of section 115 expressly stated that the further continuance of the petitioner in office would be detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat and the inhabitants of the Grama
He relied upon the report of the Subdivisional officer mentioning serious allegations against the Sarpanch which undoubtedly if true satisfied the conditions for exercise of the power
Since it has not been suggested before us otherwise we do not consider it necessary to deal with them except mentioning that besides many serious allegations the report also said that certain money belonging to the Grama Panchayat which had been received at an auction was not deposited
In the order of removal the State Government after mentioning the allegations stated that the explanation of the Sarpanch was not acceptable and he was therefore being removed from the office
The allegations made against him 181 thus were accepted as correct
In other words the State Government was of the opinion that the circumstances specified in sub section  I existed
It will be noticed that the language of sub section 2 does not require a repetition of the necessary satisfaction in the same language as referable to sub section 1
Besides the section cannot be interpreted to mandatorily lay down a rule for the authority concerned to express his conclusion in relation to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein in a particular form using a particular set of words
What is contemplated by the section is the formation of an opinion in this regard after giving a reasonable opportunity to the sarpanch in question to meet the allegations suggested and to announce the conclusion in unambiguous and express terms
All that has been done in this case
We do not
therefore see any justification in the High Court quashing the orders impugned before it
Accordingly the appeal is allowed High Court s judgment is set aside and the writ application filed before the High Court is dismissed
NPV Appeal allowed


Summary:
 The daily rated Vaccinatorslmmunisors working under the Delhi Municipal Corporation for more than eight years sought regularisation of their services and payment of wages at par with regularly appointed incumbents doing the same kind of work
On a reference the Industrial Tribunal took the view that the workmen concerned were not entitled to be regularised
Allowing the appeal by special leave  HELD The Vaccinatorslmmunisors involved in the appeal are entitled to be regularised
176G There was no justification for the respondent Corporation extracting the same amount of work from the workmen concerned on payment of daily wages at rates lower than the minimum salary which was being paid to other workmen who have been recruited regularly even though the workmen involved in the case have been working for a number of years
176C D The respondent Corporation to pay them wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of regularly employed Vaccinatorslmmunisors without any increments with effect from the date of reference
They are also entitled to the corresponding dearness allowance
176F The respondent Corporation to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the workmen involved in the case 175 as regular Vaccinatorslmmunisors within six months
Process of absorption to be completed within eight months
Arrears of salary and allowance to be paid within four months
1 5 176G H Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P  T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs Union of India  Ors and UP Income tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association vs Union of India  Ors
WP No 1870 of 1986 followed