Cwotr IN THE HIGH COURT‘OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3844? /2003 PETITIONER Vidya Charan Ratre, Aged 27 Years, S/ o Shri Santram Ratre Secretory Gram Panchayat Kirna, R/ o. Vi11. Kirna, Tah. Mungeli,Distt.Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretory Panchayat Department D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C..) Additial Collector, Bilaspur (C. G.) Sub—Dvsional fficr Mungeli, Distt. BilSpur (C.G) Chief Ective ffice Janpad Panchayat Pathria Bilaspur (C. G. A Ku. Santoshi Thakur, D/o Chhedi Singh Thakur Ex—Secreto Gram Panchayat Kirna, ah'si ngi Dis. Blspur C.G.) Sarpanch Grain Panchayat Kima, Mungeli District Bilaspur (C.t) G RESPONDENTS : l. G on ii Oe a xeu Or ) ry Tl Muel tt ia ( //2// WRIT PETITION U [A 2g6/z 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I IM11311 A .nuun- x h <g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETiTiGN UNDER RTICLE 226/227 OF THE CCNSiTUTiON OF iNm Preseni: - Shri D.N.Prajapafi, ccunsei forthe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the Statekeépandents No.1 to 3. S'nri Pankaj S'nrivasiava, counsei for respondent No.4. None for respondents 5 and 6, though served. ORAL GRDER (Passed on 23“? of March, 201 1) This s a petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 17/09/‘0'3 i passed by the Additionai Coiiector in revision, at the instance of respondent No.5. The petitioner has also cailed in question, the correctness and validity of order dated 20/10/03, passed by respondent No.4, reinstating respondent No.5 on the post of Panchayat Karmi. ‘2. Respondent No.5, while working as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Kirna was removed from the post vide resolution dated 8/9/99 and 7/1 0/99 (Annexure P/2). On account of removai of respondent No.5, a vacancy arose, therefore. the Gram Panchayat passed a resoiution on 27/1 0/99 (Annexure P/3) and vide letter dated 22/1 2/99, the Chief Executive Gfficer; Janpad Panchavat, Patharia l directed the Sarpanch/President/Secretary, Administrative Committee of Gram Panchayat to appoint the petitioner as Panchayat Karml. it ls the case of the inqie Bench: Hon’bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava S J. A WRIT PETiTiON NQ3844/2003 PETiTiONER Vidya Charan Ratre Versus RE$PONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh and others. petitioner that thereafter, he was appoited as Panchayat Karmil‘Secretary of n Gram Panchayat. 3. Respondent No.5, who was aggrieved by her remal, preferred an ov appeai which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of dismissai, revision was a preferred before the revisionai authority, who vide order dated 17/9/03 has aliowed the revision hoding that the respondent No.5 has been removed withou i t approvai of Gram Sabha and that respondent No.5 was not given proper opportunity to prove h case in the appeai. y the said order, he order passed on 9/5/2000 in appeal has been set aside. 4. Assailing the aforesaid order passed by the revisionai authority, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was duly appointed to the post of Panchayat Karmi in the vacancy caused due to removal of respondent No.5 and therefore, the order passed in favour of respondent No.5, by the revisionai authority, directly affected the petitioner's continuance in the ohice and let to termination of the petitioner on reinstatement of respondent No.5. He ; submits that therefore, the petitioner was a necessary party and the order passed by the revisionai authority is liable to be quashed on this ground aione. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisionai authority has failed to see that respondent No.5 was properly removed from her office, as a resolution was passed by Gram Panchayat against her and later on, the same was approved by Gram Sabha on 7/10/99. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the'judgment in the case of Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and others. 2001 AIR $CW 4022. @ er B t 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner has an aiternative remedy of appeai under the provisfons of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, $95. lt is further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief only on the ground that it was not impleaded as a party because the order of removal of respondent no.5 has been deciared iilegai by the revisionai authority after considering records of the concemed Gram Panchayat and recorded finding that respondent No.5 was not granted proper opportunity of hearing and there was no resoiution of Gram Sabha approving the resoiution of Gram Panchayat to remove respondent No.5. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner was not a necessary party at all. He submits that merely because the petitioner was appointed on the vacancy which arose on account of removal of respondent No.5, it cannot be said that in a iis, invoiving correctness and validity of the order of removai of respondent no.5, the petitioner was a party. it is further submitted that the power exercisable by the Gram Sabha couid not be exercised by the Administrative Committee and therefore, there was no vaiid approval of Gram 3abha. He further submits that removal of respondent no.5 was heid bad as proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to respondent No.5. 7. Assuming that there is some remedy of appeai in favour of the petitioner, at this distance. of time, as the petition has remained pending before this Court since 2003 and considering that correctness of the order has been chaiienged . primariiy on the ground of vioiation of principles of natural justice, l am not inclined to throw the petition on the ground of existence of any alternative remedy. @ @ 8. it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed against the post which feii vacant on the ground of removai of respondent No.5. True it is, the petitioner was not a necessary party to the lis with regard to the correctness and vaiidity of removal of respondent No.5, it cannot be ignored that any order passed in favour of respondent No.5 wouid directly affect continuance of the petitioner in the office. lnfact, the order of the revisional authority has resuited in issuance of order dated 20/1 0/03 (Annexure P/6), by which the respondent No.5 has been directed to be reinstated in the office of Panchayat Karmi. Therefore, order passed in the proceedings ied to termination of the petitioner from the office of Panchayat Karmi. 9. Even if the petitioner has not been impieaded as a party in the present case, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, i am not inclined to set aside the order passed by the revisional authority. This is so because respondent No.5 itself has been denied opportunity of hearing and that there is no valid resolution of Gram Sabha approving removal of respondent No.5. Even before this Court, the petitioner could not satisfy that the removai of respondent No.5 was valid and in accordance with iaw. Infact, the petitioner could not assail as to how the finding of revisional authority that there was no resolution of Gram Sabha and that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to respondent No.5, is in any manner, illegal or bad. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the petitioner was a necessary party, only on this ground, l am not inclined to set aside the order passed in revision and otherwise, the order does not suffer from any illegality because the petitioner could not point out any provisions of law or materiai to show that the proposal by they Administrative Committee was in accordance with law and there is no need to get approval from the Gram Sabha. 1‘0. However, one aspect which needs to be noticed authority, though recorded certain findings that without approvai of Gram Sabha. respondent No.5 has been removed, in the hnai anaiysis, the order passed in appeai has been set aside. The order passed by the revisionai authority is made a basis to direct reinstatement of respondent No.5. that the revisional 11. Be that as it may, in View of the findings which have been recorded hereinabove, I am not inclined to grant any reiief to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. /\ ‘ 1% Sd/i" e ‘ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. ’ : Judge ‘ r if’ a». mmdee ”Hwy... e. Atwumwww... .