IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.427 of 2010 1. ANIL PRASAD S/O BISHUNI RAM R/O VILL.- SARMERA, P.S.- SARMERA, DISTT.- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ELECTION) PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF P.S. AND DISTT.- NALANDA ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.B.K.Chaudhary, Sr.Adv. and Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh. For the State : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, G.P.-14 For the Intervenor : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam 2 8.3.2010 Petitioner has been removed as Mukhiya of Sarmera Gram Panchayat by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. A counter affidavit has been filed by Circle Officer, Sarmera, Nalanda. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and respondents and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Heard Mr. S.B.K.Manglam, who seeks to intervene on behalf of some of the members of the Gram Panchayat. In my view , intervention is not permissible .The order under challenge is the statutory order passed by the State Government and the State Government is there to defend themselves. If the interveners, who are the members of the Panchayat have any grievance against his Mukhiya, they have a special right known as “no confidence motion”, which they can utilize as and when 2 appropriate. Intervention is thus rejected. The submission of the petitioner is two folds. Firstly, a proceeding for his removal was initiated by a show cause notice, which made allegation only in respect of a single transaction. The final order has been passed holding petitioner guilty in respect of two separate independent transactions , one, which has been added does not even pertain to petitioner’s Panchayat rather undisputedly it pertains to Chero Panchayat. Thus, the order is vitiated and secondly, it is submitted that once proceedings were initiated by the State on the show cause filed by the petitioner, comments were called for from the Collector. The Collector filed his comments to the State directly, which were not disclosed to the petitioner, and a decision taken virtually accepting what the Collector had to say that is in violation of basic principle of natural justice .Thus vitiating the order. Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition has to be allowed on both the counts. A reference to the impugned order would show that the State Government has merely narrated what is stated by one party or the other and has accepted without cogent reason what the Collector has said as against the petitioner. It is apparent from the show cause notice that the charge against the petitioner was with regard to Scheme no. 16 of 2006-2007 of Sarmera Panchayat but the FIR was lodged at the instance of Superintendent of Police in respect of works in two Panchayats. While passing the final order based on report of the Collector, petitioner has been found guilty of dereliction with 3 regard to work in Chero Panchayat as well. Admittedly and undisputedly, petitioner had nothing to do with that Panchayat. The petitioner in his show cause had clearly pointed out that he has no connection with the work at Chero Panchayat. The State Government in the order impugned has held that the petitioner has annexed no document to substantiate his plea. This shows, if any thing, a total non application of mind if not a fixed idea with which State proceeded in the matter. Thus, obviously petitioner was found guilty on account of fact, which has not been mentioned in the show cause notice and in respect of fact which did not relate to the petitioner. That vitiates the order. Even on the second ground, once the State Government decided to ask for comments from the Collector upon the show cause, as filed by the petitioner, having received the comments, the government was bound to disclose the same to the petitioner before accepting what was stated by the Collector. If I may put, it is like though a counter affidavit is filed, which is not disclosed to the parties and the court proceeding to act on the averments made therein. That is clear violation of basic principle of natural justice. That vitiates the order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the State Government is set aside. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)