B ie—78 ^ sw^v w ft-fi'* TOT sff^ aiw T°ET "4|i(id^, aitii.M'ie, fsioi'yy WHcn (hlicb TFl 200 SII^T'q^q? ('^3^S?) twiWBf^isn^n HIGH CPURT OF WRIT PETIT WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTI bL.B 227 Or'l'HE CONSTITUTIQS OF INDIA PRTTT Smt. Kaust ('i'erm Devel-': RESPONDBNT! <5, 4 Dhireadra Mishra, J, el Mr. D.C. Vei-ma, couasf Mr. AI-LUI Sao, Govt. Ad\ Heard. ; The petitiouer was £ Talchatmir, District- BHasDur. Paiichavat- KureU, proceedui! 4tI^rfd4)-T 'WT^ff "^f fe[^ <Fn^« ^T aifim 3l)^?r 'HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ON (227) N0. 2314/200S 3ekha Dev-i Kaushik, W/o Shri Ramnarayan .ik, aged about 28 years, Sas'panch nated), Gram Panchayat- ^ Kureii, .oment Block Takhatp'jr, District Bilaspur Versus State |3f Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretaiy, Panch^'at and Social Welfai'e Department, D.K.S, Biiavai), Maiiu'aiaya, Raipur (C}i}iattisgar}l) Directolr, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Chhattjsgai'h, D.K.g. Bhawaii, Raipur (C.G.) Cuileuli|)r, Bilaspur, Lhrough Additiuiial Collcctur, Bilaspijr (C.G.) Sub Di'^sional Oft'icer (Revenuej, village- Kota (Kai-gi Koacl.i ll.'lstnct yilaspur (U.U.j Chief | Executive Officer, Janpad Panchavat- Takhatj^ur, District Bilaspur (C.G.'j 6, Up-sarj(>anch and Panchas, Gram Panchayat Kureli, Block lakhatpur, District Bilaspur fC.G.i AL O RD@ R 30-4-200t jl for the Detitioner. tocate for fhe State. taTpanch of Gram. Panchayat- Kureli, On coniplaints by Panchas of Gremi under Section 40 of tlie Pancliavat Rai —78 311^1 ^il f<'li'+ wiisn^iiCTW 'S'Scf -4|A||d-4, ®tily'i6,fq<'ii'yy,< NIWIT tb*<l^ "^200 3II^T'tT^7 (iqt^q'i'I) ^<inir ^ifro sn^iT -2.4 •Divisiclnal subtiitted Exedutive LBtl Adliitiivam, 1993 (for short] petitioner aad tlie Sub-Divisic|n; Aufhority under Section 40 ol consisting fliree Dieinbers for aUegations made agaiast thd Kota, Bilaspur on tlie basis Executive OfEcer, Takhatpi| petitioner. The petitioner Thereafter, Sub Divisional subiaitted bv the Chief reiaoved the petitioner from. irregularities com.m.ittee bv liub.. The petiti.on.er preferrec| before fhe Additioual CoUect4r after hearirig fhe petitioner, her revisioii agaiast tlie orderl disiuissed by fhe Director, Pa4 Leamed counsel for Dwisional Ofiicer (Revenue),| coiniuittee of fhe officers Engiaeeriiig Seivices), Takha^ Inspector, Taldiatpur for However, the. actiou was takeji of enquiry report subinitted l( 'Act of 19931 was drawn aeainst fhe Officer (Revenue), Kota, fhe Prescribed the Act of 1993 constituted a coiniaittee PIC pui^ose ofenquin' with. respect to the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Of&cer, |)f enquiiy report siibiuitted by the Chief issued show-cause notice to the ,his reply to the show-cause notice. (pfiicer, on the; basis of enquir)' report Of&cer aad reply of the petitioner, the post of Sarpanch on the basis of cftl<<I^fqll *1H<'lf'^1s'<l ^Pq+tfK ^sifinsii^ii rejjected aa appeal again.st the order of reiiioval ^r, Bilaspur smd the Additional Collector her appeal vide Aiuiexure / P-4 aiid ofAdditional Collector, Bilaspur was also Lchayat vide order of Annexure/ P-10. the petitioner submits that tbe Sub- Kota, Distt. Bjlaspur constttuted the ,e. (1) Sub Divisional Officer (Rural pur (2) Naib Talisiklar, Sakri, and Food iductuig enquity against the petitkiner. against fhe petitioner only OH fhe basis y tlie Chief Executive OfBcer, Takhatpur coiliduc '^ ;—78 m. i sn^Tw^fw wi3ii%?ignw '3'£[•*ll'41d4, si^ly'l<», fslcfliyy *iWV\\ ^t*fftf» •^FI, 200 sn^r 'v^; (ly!-i«i<tT) aad the petitioner was not affc|i th.e witaesses who were time of enquin' and fhus she lierself. After heaririR leanied coij' the orders passed by Sub-l[ A-irnexure/P-3, which has 'Vf Additional Collector, Bilaspurfl Paiichayat, Chhattisgarh vide the above orders haye been subiaitted bv tlie Chief Exectl basis of reply of the petition| recorded bv above tliree Court4 the Grani Paachavat were preparation of false niuster rolej and the aboye fiiidiiig has bel sanie does not call for iaterfereit In the result, the petition| disinissed aud is accordinglv Sd/- Dhireiidra Mishra Judge ^iwli't'il-i tfWtfl^f feiat <(ai«5i< '^atfinsii^r ^-ded any opporturut^" of cross-exajnuung exami)h.ed by tlie Chief Executi.ve Officer at fhe -VST |was not afTorded opportunto' to defend jnsel for the petitioner aad after perusiag -Ipivisional OfBcer (Revenue) Kota vide >een s'ubsequenfly confii'nied by fhe vide Annexure/P-4 aiid the Director, 4nnexure/ P-10, I am. of tlte opmion fhat ^assed on the basis of enquiiy report ^tive Officer, Takhatp'ur as also on the ;r, Uiere is concurrent findiug of fact that the petitioner and fhe Secretary of jo|ntly responsible for UTegularities aiid and payiaent ofwages to the labourers; ;n recorded after due enquiry aad the iaterfereilice. beuig devoid of substaace is Uable to be dibmissed at the adniission stage itself