Writ Petition (C) No. 6913 of 2008 SmS. Rekha Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Othere AF^ \ /^ •K. Post for pronpuncement of Judgment & Order on 6 day of Augusf, 2009 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri 1 Judge ^, iNN'l^ f^%!;^ J:fc;iA^r'K'J3^^SS HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 6913 of 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Rekha Sahu, W/o Shri Ravi Shankar Sahu, aged aboutSO years, R/o Gram Panchayat, Hasda, Block Magarlod, Dist. Dhamtari (CG). Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh — through its Secretary, Panchayat Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG). 2 The Director, Panchayat, Raipur (CG). 3 Additional Collector, Dhamtari, Dist. Dhamtari (CG). 4 Sub Divisional Officer, Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari(CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bleShri Satish K.Agnihotri, J Preseht: Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri AjitSingh, Panel Lawyerfor the State/respondents. Shri Prateek Sharma, counsel forthe interveners. JUDGMENT&ORDER •K. (Passed on this day ofAugust, 2009) 1: 2. ^y 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Challenge in. this petition is to the order dated 24 November, 2008 (Annexure - P/12) passed by the Director (Panchayat), Chhattisgarh, Raipur.in revision case No.4/A-89/08.09 whereby the Director has dismissed the revision upholding the order dated 6 October, 2008 (Annexure - P/10) passed by the Additional Collector, Dhamtari, in appeal caseNo.75 A/89/year 2007-08. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hasda, Blpck Magarlod, Dist. Dhamtari. On a complaint, the Tahsildar, r ;^SH-::^_......; •a i^ ssa ^%^ I 4 / / sqj. 'UBtiueqa 'Jop9||0o|euo!iippv aill 9JO^eq ]eedde UB psjjs^ejd jsuo]i!t9d si<i 'gOOZ 'sunp ^,93 psiep jepjo 34} Aq p9Aeu6BB Buieg '666L LueAiuiqpv SMUO (g) Qfr uoipsg ^o suoisiAOjd SL|I japun sjesA xis joj Jeuoi^sd aqi psyiiBnbsip pue qouedjeg jo isod eqt LU04 jsuoifiied eqt paAotusj pue (,£66t 'u/eA/u/ypy sy;,, juoys -'o/) £661- 'uJe^!u!4PV fey ieAeL|oued LjjeBsiheqqo 91)} p Qfr uoipeg io suoisiAojd si)i jspun jSMOd ^o aspjsxs ui uuiq Aq psuiiuLuoo ssitueinBsjji p A}|inB jauo])!}3d sqi p]9q (z/d - 9jnxeuuv) 800Z 'aunp y,9Z psiep JspJO Aq jsoiyo IBUOISIMQ qns aqi 6uuesL| p A(!un}joddo ue BuipjoyeinoqiiM 'snyi 'sssutiM sqi p luaiusteis se psiesjt sq Aeiu yodsj Ajinbus sqi teqi uoijisodsp siq ui psieis seq oqm 'jsoiyo Ajinbus sqi SUILUBXS-SSOJO 01 jsuoiijied sqt iiiujed 01 ^esssoeuiou si)! 'qons SB 'puesiusujnoop jaq^o pue uoisniouoo ^euiLuiisjd jo siseq sqt uo psieiiiui ussq SBL| Ajinbus sqi leqi punbj6 sqt uo pspafsj SBM jsuoiiiiod sqt ys uoi.ieoiidde au^ (9/d -9-inxauuv) 800Z 'sunp fr eqiuQ 'aiep }xeu sqt uo asodsp O) psjinbsj SBM Q\i se 'podsj p9U!Ujqnsseq 04m 'ieqqqoued •g ui)s suiiuexs-ssojo 0} jeq Buiitiuiiad pnjn» 'jsoiyo IBUOISIAIQ qn9 aq) o) fe/d - sjnxeuuy) 8002 'sunp q,fr 841 uo uoiteoiidde UB spBiu j8UO!i!ied 8i|j. '(fr/d - ajnxsuuv) aoi.iou ssneo moqs 941 QI asuodssj jsq paftiujqns jauoitiisd 341 •g/d - sjnxsuuy spiA issqs eBjeqo e penssi j30!yoieuo!S!A!a qn994t 'iJOdsj sqi^o idieoej UQ •900Z 'PV uoiteuijo^ui QtiLiBiy aqip suoisiAOJd 8L|ilo UO!IB|OIA paniLuaioo sniji 'sujil psquossjd sqi uiqtiM !L|Oje6e|\| sjoqsix |e6nr Aq iqBnos se UOIIBLUJOIUI sqi qsiujn^ 01 psiiei sei| L|ousdjes 8L|»leqi BU!P]OL| (z/d - ajnxauuy) 8002 'l'.-idV q,9Z S41 uo ijodsj e psiiiiuqns pue jeuoiinsd aqi o) Buuesq p Atiunyoddoue Buipjoye inoqtim ^inbua ue pspnpuoo 'uBtuuBLia IOI^SIQ 'po|je6e|^| •9 ^r •fr 6. 7. ^ Additional Collector, Dhamtari, by order dated 6* October, 2008 (Annexure - P/10) held that the enquiry was concluded on the basis of documents and it was not necessary to examine the witnesses or cross-examine any other witnesses thereon. Thus, the order dated 26 June, 2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed on 6 October, 2008. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Director (Panchayat). The Director by impugned order dated 24th November, 2008 (Annexure - P/12) confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector and dismissed the revision. Thus, this writ petition. Shri Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the enquiry officer, who in his deposition/statement submitted that the enquiry report may be treated as his statement and, assuch, his statement was the statement of a witness. The petitioner ought to have been permitted to cross-examine him. Learned counseiwould further submit that the petitioner should be permitted to produce and examine her own witnesses. Enquiry on the basis ofthe records is not a proper and reasonable enquiry. Per contra, Shri Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would submit that the issue involved herein with regard to cross-examining a witness, who has given a statement atany stage, which has been brought for consideration in the enquiry, is well settled by this Court in Gaukaran Das Banjare vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others1. F 1 WP (C).,No.5651 of 2008 (6-11-2008) ISSBStew.^ ^y' 01.338(2)6661. •S)soo OISB jepjo ON 'psiiSBnb Aqsjsij si 'jndiey 'qjeBsineyqo 'fte^eqoued) JopejiQ eqi Aq psssed (zi./d - ejnxeuuv) 800Z 'JsqujsAON ^yZ peiep jepjo pauBndiui aij} pue peMb||e si uoi)!)8d }UM 94} 'aAoqeuiejsij psuoituguj suoseaj sq) joj • [. [. •uoipe ui Ae]d JIB^ pue soitsnf |ejn}eu y> seidiouud oiseq aL|t ^r 4}!M eouepjoooe ui papnpuoo tou SGM Ajinbue aq) feq) pej eq) p tunoooe uo paiBitiA si (^i./d sjnxeuuv) 9QOZ '•'sqLueAON ^z pe}Bp jepjo eqi 'sni)i 'Jsoyo /Jinbug eq} euiiuexs-ssojo o) ^iunyoddo 91)} psiuapsGM '(senbaj e}idsep 'jeuoi^sd eyi 'jeoiyo Ajinbug 94} }Q )ueujsiB}s SB us^ei seM yodej Ajinbue ue 'puey uo eseo 94) u| •oi. ..•sseuiiM }eq} eu!ujexs -ssojo 0} A}iun]joddo ue USAIB sq jayesjsq} pinoqs OL|M )U9nbu!|sp sq} 0} peiiddns sq (Sjy p[noL|s }u8Lus}e(s )BL|} p Adoo e (eqi si ynoo siqi Aq UMOP P.IB] SB MB| eq} 'sBuipeaoojd |B}ueujyBd9p sq} U! PJOOSJ uo )q6nojq aq 01 pssodojd si 'uoiteBilsaAUi jo ^iinbue Ajeuiujiisjd p gsjnoo 041 Buunp jaqjis 'SSSUI.IM e Aq spBLu A|snoiA8jd (USLua}e)s e ajeijM 'ujeii} SUILUBXS-SSOJO o) Aiiunyoddo ue u8Ai6 sq ||eq9 oqM luenbuiisp 94} p soussajd sq) ui psuiLuexs sq lieqs Ajinbug leiueujyBdap aqi ui sasssu)!M sqt ||B leqisi s^usLusjinbQj oiseq SL|} ys euo qoiq/w jepun aoifsnf]Bjnteu y> seidiouud eqi q}iM aouepjoooe ui Buuesq,, SUBQLU (g) |.[.£ e|oi]JV Aq ps}B|dLue}uoo AtiuniJoddo siqBUoseey •}usnbu!|sp 94) 0} Buuesq p A}iun}joddo siqeuoseej spiAOjd 0} s)jodjnd (i jsqieqM }no puy 0} uo4n}!)suoo aqi p (g) [.|.e spi}JV "! psuiBtuoo suoisiAojd 94} jo iqBii eq) ui psjspisuoo sq 0} seq (g) 91. 9|ny 'aAOqe 94} iuoji pBdy •Z£,, / : jspun se paAjssqopnoo SLusjdng S[q,uo|-| sq) ' sjaq^o P"B S3.i|0d ^o jeuoissiuiiuoo •SA qBuig dasp|nx u| •g 'ssauiiM ieq) euiiuexs-ssojo 0} A(iunpoddo ue USAIB sq pinoqs sq jsyesjsi)) pue iuaujs)B}s SL|} yi Adoo e 0} ps|li}ua si }U8nbui|9p 94) 'sBuipasoojd |Blu9LulJBdsp sqi ui pjoosj 04} uo }q6nojq si SSSUIIM e Aq apeiu }U9LU8}eis e ji }eq) p|sq (ejdns) ejefueg SBaueje)|ne9 ui iJnoQ SIL|I •g ^•K^^ Gowri 12. However, having regard to the facts'situation ofthecase, libertyfe reserved to the concerned authority to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, if so advised, without being influenced by the observations, if any, made by this Court. ^td^t" Satisi "-:~-1:"\ Judge ^