HICrH COUKT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER BESPONDENTS WRTT PETITION<C) Wfc3161^f2(W7 Vyas Narayan Verma, Son of Shyamlal Verma, aged about 28 years, Sarpamsh Gran Paachayat Nawagaon, R/Q. Oram P^nchayat Nawagaon, Tateil Nawagarii, District Durg (C.G.) VER8US: : • ., :': : 1. State of Chfaattisgarii, fhrough The Secretary, Departmeat of Paacliayat and Soeial Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawaa Raipur(C.O.) 2. The Colleetor, Durg, Distriet Durg (C.G.) 3. Additioiial Collector, Bemetar, District Diug (C^.),, ; :; ;' ..., 1 ',..'• 4. The DirectQr, Departmenf of Panchayat and 5. Sub-Divisional Qffieer, Bemetara, DistrictDurg (C.<3.).;1' . ' ; .. , • 6. The CluefExecutive Officer, Janpad Paiehayat Nawa^h, Distriet Durg (C.G.) 7. Shanfcar Prasad, S/o Ra.mratan ¥adu,aged about 35 yeare, R/o. Village-NavagaoM, Gram Panchayat Nava^on, Tahsil NavagaAn, Distriet Durg(C.G.) 8. Jagdev Yadav; S/o. Banshi YadaY, Panch, Oram Panchayat Navagaon, Tahsil Navagarii, District Durg(C.G.) WMT PETmONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OFTHECONSTmjnON OF INDIA : / , •'' " :; ' Single Berich : Hon'MeJUStice Shri Satlsli K.AgnIhptri, Present: Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner.- SlmV.V.S.Moorthy,Dy.AdvocateGeneralwiliiSmt.AnjuAhuja, Dy. GovL Advocate fbrthe State/respondfflitNo.lto 5. ORUER CH (Passedonl3nldayafjune,2007) ; - By this petitioa, filed underArticle 226/227 of fheConstitution, ttie petitioner challenges flie legalily and validity of flie order &ttied 12.04.2007 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent no. 4 in Atmeal; Case No. I9/A-89/05-06. The maui contention oftUe petitioner is fhaf the i ^e^SSSK::^iS:^SSs5^^g^'i-^::SS^^ §fSSSf-S^^^^t 35?S !! 25 i i ••^ ^i' '^^ggS^^^^^SSS^SS^'-s^S^SS^Ss'- ^I^^^^^^^^^E^^i^^^11^ re?"~~"'"i5 •ti'A ic'w ^s -*s3i:,^" i-C^ impugned order was passed without sffordmg aay OppQrtunily ofhearing to the petitioner and as suchthe impugned order is bad in law. Secondly, the alleeations against the petitioner have not been examined in its proper perspectiw. I have heard the leamed counsel for the parties, pemged tfae impugned order as well as other orders and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioner, while working as Sarpanch has CQmmitted serious irregularities in making payment to the workers who were engaged for execution of certain works by the Gram Panchayat Nawagaon. It is clear from the orders passed by the Director and by tiie Additional Collector Bemetara that the petitioner was given sufficient notice and opportumty ofhearineon 15.09.2005,19.09.2005,26.09.2005, 03.10.2005, 24.10.2005 and 10.11.2005. Despite service of several notices,. fhe petitioner did not come forward to file his reply or any document in his defence. Thus, it cannot be held tfaat no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioaer. It is weU settled that despite service ofnotice, ifthe delinquentdoes riof file the reply, it is held that proper opportunity ofhearing was afForded to flie concemed person. The petitioner has produced a medical certificate (Annexure P/4) wherein he was shovm as outdoor patient in Evangelical Hospital, Baitalpur from 10.09.20005 to 15.11.2005. Credence of this medical certificate is doubtfiil, as the period given in the medical Certificate is exactly few days before the first notice was issued aad few days afterthe last noticewas issued. Even otherwise, the petitioner was an outdoor patient and as sueh, he was in a position to asK for time t6 file replyto the show causenotiee. The petitioner was removed fi-om the post i-^-^% "'^ ^•^-^—^^•^ ...':.s*' of Sarpanch on flie finding that several in-egularitiescomnutted by him is proved. The impugned order is unexceptionable anddoes not wan-ant any interference. 4. It is well settled principle oflaw that under Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia, thisGourthasjurisdictionofjudiciaJ review of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the lace ofthe proceedings based on fhe clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions oflaw or there is grave failure of jostiee or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this Court can also entertain the petition in its supCTyisoryjurisdiction ifthere is perversity, irregularity orillegality in the process ofdecision, not in the decision itself. 5. Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it does not warrant an mterference with the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4. 6. Thus.thispetitionisdismissed.Noorderastocosts. 7. Consequently.I.A. No. 1, applieation fer grant of interim relie^ cr ' " ''. . . ' . '" .' ' ' '.'' stands disposed of. : ___ j , ,;,^ Sd/-^.^^.,^' ; Satisii?]]K.liA^ulM»tri':' ; Amit