HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQNBENCH ( 1 CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA,GJ. HON'BLE SHRISUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant (Petitionert Respondents Wrtt Appeal No.141/2007 Sundarial, son of Shrl Siddhuram, Upsarparwh; Gram Panchayat Khondhar, Tehsit Dabhra, Olstrict Janjgir. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throigh the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Director, Department of Panchayat, Raipur. 3. The Colleetor, District Janjgir. 4. Shri Paltan Chauhan, son of Not Known, resident of Khondhar, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir. Writ Appeal Under Section 2 (1V ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Divlsion Bench) Act. 2006. Present ShriAjit Slngh, leamed counsel for theappeltant. Shri N.K. /^rawal, leamed Dy. Adv<wate General for theState/respondents No. 1,2 and 3. JUDGMENT (Passed on 07TH February, 2008) Leamed counsel forthe parties^reheafd onadmission. I - 2. Appellant Sundarlal has flled this Writ Appeal against ttie impugned judgment dated 13th February, 2007 passed lnW.P.(C) No.l28of20)7. Lui^SB& WfWgiSBJiliitN -'A.-. -;-_;,u[iyi;t;gttj?^ •• ••iBTtT-r''^ ";."^v. A6|aiaMM4BABt(ouBcj 'JoioajiQ Aq (»ssed900Z-ZI-90 psiepjspjo p Bujtisenb Bupisas <SBM 'aouBisqns ui 'iueiiadde Sqi •^ ."^. . . . ' " • .ynoo aiq,uo|-|spflpuonaK>s!p3tl»ut}8!|3J-ia4lo^uv •e •sBuipasoojdsyiioisoo 'P •9SBQ84t JO S80UB}SUinaip PUB SpBl syi ui youBdjes 9t|}se f "ON luspuodssj 941 Aq uoitounj Aue aBjBiiosip 01 fr 'ON luspuodsej aiH liuuwl o»iou paioajip sq sajiyoyine eieis 841 PUB 8863 81)^ 10 Sa3UB^UUn8J|0 pUE SliOBJ 8t|( ti| 4pot|»iBAeyoued IURIO ^o tiouedjes SB uojpuni 341 6uiBjB40sip uio4 fr -ON lyapuodCTJ sin BuiupBJiSs.i snss! op uoiuqiqojd laipw^o airqBU siftjui J9pK) ue jQ/pue »UAAv •o •asK)8tfllos83uetsuino.ii3pyB spqui (-dajrerauu^Qooz-S^PS^^oU^ |BUO|s|Ai£r qng sqi jo japjo 8i(t Buuo^ai lOaye ui PUB te-d s^reouuv) WKK'Q'SZ payep japio atnfiuiuuuuoa (t.-d s-inxauuv) axK-zi.-g paiep jspjo aifl Bu!ysenb snssj op jjBioiyao ^o 41-uiA ^o ajn}Bu eyi ui japjo ue jo/pue }yM v 'q •uojijiediUMainp |Bsods|p jiet pue lesruad j<y uiajsq jsuoiutsd aijl 10 aseo ay} <q 6ujie|ai sp.iooai iUBA8|9j eqi ||B ynoo a|q,uoH SMI ajoieq sbnpojd oi seiiyoyine eiets luepuodsai 941 Bufloaiip pUB BuipuBUJiuoo anssi op snuiepuEiu p t!.iM jo MniBu aqi ui jepjo ue jo/pue IJJM v •e,, -:Sl8j|SJ 6u|Mo||o,t 941 jo^ uo)}i.iad )!.IM paiu |B|jBpuns iue||sddv "£ i^'^L^^^^f'^^^ ee^- tii the appeal preferred by the appeltant/petitioner agatnst theorder dated 28-08-2006 passed by Additional Collector was dismissed. 5. The appellant was elected as Up-Sarpaneh of Gram Panchayat Khondhar, whereas respondent No.4/Pattan Chauhan was elected as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. On the cpmplaint of the appellant against respondent No.4/Paltan Chauhanalleging financial irregularity and defalcation to the tune of Rs.2,50,297/-,Sub Divisional Offlcer (prescribed authority), Dabhra vide order dated 29-05-2006 found respondent No. 4 guilty of thesaid charges and directed for his removal from the post of Sarpanch under Sectlon 40 (1) of the Ghhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, furtherdisquatifylngrespondent No.4/Paltan Chauhan for a period ofsbcyearsandalso dlrecting recovery ofthe amount of Rs.2,50,297/-from him. 6. In the appeal fited by respondent No.4/Palten Chauhan against the above order of the Sub Divisional Officer, the Addltional Colleetor, Dlstrict Janjgir-Champa hetel that sufflcient opportunity of hearing was not affordfed to respondent No. 4. The Additlonal Collastor, therefore, altowal the appeal fited by respondent No.4/Paltan Chauhanandset aside the order dated 29-05-2006 passed by the Sub Divlslonal Offteer. This order of Addltional Collector was challenged by the appeltanypetitioner before the Director Panchayat which wasaffirmed bythe Director Panchayat while dismissing the appeat viae order dated 05-12-2006. ^w^s^ass^wsaaiFf .iifA""^ !?y;'°aai, nI ^ '••^.^/./ SUS9 7. Shri Ajit Singh, leamed Gounsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Additional Collector has erred In holdlng that suffteient opportunity vras not glven to respondent No.4/Paltan Chauhan. Leamed counsel for theappellantfurther submitted that even if suffictent opportunity of hearing was not given to respondent No.4, the Additlonal Collector ought to have remanded the case to the Sub Divteional OfRcer for further enquiry after affording reasonable opportunlty of hearing to respondent No.4. 8. Ondueconsiderationofsubmissionofleamedcounsetfor the partles, we do not flnd any good ground for interference in thls writ appeal, as we are satisfied that the view taken by the AddittonalColtectorintheappealfiledbyrespondentNo.4whtch stands affirmed by the order of Director, Panchayat and the impugned judgment of the writ Court, does not call Tor any interference in this writ appeal. 9. Thewrttappeal, therefore, ts liable to bedlsmissedand Is hereby dismissed OT/ifmfee. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha &' Kaintto i.--14-.l.i. ^^»=£^"W"lfT»—in.ri..^i.i i-;':^-,—