JNTHB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) N0. ] ] /200§ PETITIONER ^^' \<""y^ D^^u^\°^ ^^>y -•1" ?-;^..>°' ^ Ramadhar Beldar S/o Bhagwat Prasad Beldar, aged about 30 years, Occupation Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Gataura, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G. (Applicant) ^•"•' VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The Director Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2. The Additional Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. $. Santosh Kumar Rathore, Occupation Panch, Gram Panchayat Gataura, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G. 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 5. Tahsildar Masturi, Tahsil Office Masturi, District Bilaspur C.G. (Respondent no. 3 to 5 were non- applicants before Director Panchayat) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF ANAPPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. SAESSSSSEiS: -HC—78 ^Tf^r-^i ^^' Tl^rr 5T?^I ^^T^' HW^T^NE^ -^-^ ^i^H^ i^TFT^, f^;fRJy .^.!:o.ca^.........i..i................. sn^r ^R? Crt^*?) w^w "^tt^ ^m ^RfepN 'RR^f "^ f^ZT Tf^^H -^ S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal 25.08.2009 Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advojsate forthe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Aepvocate for State. ShrS GR Miri, Advocate for Record of court below was! The instant petition is whereby the revision preferred iaveator. produced by Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate. The same was shownjto Shri Pandey, counsel for petitioner. With the consent ofthe par^les, the matter is heard finaHy. directed against the order dated 26.11.2008, passed by the Directpr Panchayat (first respondent herein), by the petitioner against the order passed by 2nd respondent was affirmed and the petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch. 1 The brief facts of the c^se are that, in January, 2005, the petitioner was elected as Sarp^nch Gram Panchayat, Gataura. On 04.10.2006, certain complaints w^re made bythe 3rd respondent before the Health and Family Welfar^ Minister. In pursuance to said complaint, the 4th respondent |directed for inquiry and for that a committee comprising six memb^rs was constituted. The committed so constituted, submitted their repor^ holding the petitioner guilty, although three members were not agreed^ with the report. The 4th respondent noticed the petitioner. A copy 6f inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner flled hislreply, therein one person from jnquiry ^ l^^l^ 1 •-.-^_ rHC--78 -3^ '^TTqT^PT, ^ftWT^, 'fecTray 'tlTO^IT WW^ •^200 ^?T ^^ (^S^') STT^I'^Tt^lW ^S?TW^?W:?W ^Tmw^ft^ ^?R^T 37!-zrf?NNTm^ ^ TS^ ^fSR^R ^ committee was examined and th^ petitioner was also examjned. At the instance of petitioner, the case wfas closed for orders and thereafter the 4th respondent, vide order dated ^2.11.2007, passed the removal order of petitioner. Against that, the pejtitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, who djsm|ssed the appeal vide order dated 28.12.2007. The petitioner again preferred a revision before the Director, Panchayat, who also di^r 26.11.2008. Hence this petition. ^missed the revision vide order dated submit that although the charges denied by the petitioner in th^ respondent, but it is settled positi have inquired into the matter in Shri Pandey, learned counjsel appearing for the petitioner would leveled against the petitioner were not reply filed by him before the 4'ith J3n of law that 4th respondent ought to idetail and ought to have passed the order after going through all the r^cords. Therefore, the orders passed by the courts below deserve to belset aside. 1 Per contra, Shri Satish Gup|ta, Govt. Advocate, would submit that record of the case would reveal thjat even after the fact that the charges leveled against the petitioner was|not denied by him, the 4th respondent inquired into the matter in det^il inasmuch one member of inquiry committee was examined, the p^titioner was also examined and after giving full opportunity, at the insfance of the petitioner, the case was closed for orders, and after con^idering all aspects of the matter the ^" ^y^ ^^^^^ '^,.^^ *'%^3^HC—78 '-^TPTr^PT, ^"^FT^, f^TRTy ^m^r^^nw S^ -q^T (^f^^^) ^Tf^l'^Tt^t^ Pt'^T 3^1 ^^^ '^TrW^rf^T 311^1 ^N^fH 'HiH^ '^ ft^" Tfe^K iT^feH^TI^I <th courts below should not be Advocate. It is not a case where it order has been passed. The ord^r passed by the 4In respondent is well reasoned order. The said order wjas affirmed by the 2nd respondent and also by the 1st respondent, and th^refore, no fault can be found in it. He would further submit that the cojncurrent finding arrived at by all the disturbed lightly while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Arjticle 227 of Constitution of India. 1 have heard the counsel ^ppearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and the record i)roduced by Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. fcan be said that the order has been passed by the prescribed authori(y i.e. 4th respondent without giving full opportunity of hearing to th^ petitioner. In the instant case, undisputedly, the charges levelec| against the petitioner were not denied by the petitioner, despite that, th^ inquiry was conducted. The petitioner appeared before the prescrib^d authority on each hearing. One member of inquiry committed wh^) was not agree with the inquiry report, wasexamined and cross exami|ied and thereafter the petitioner was examined and petitioner himselfj requested the prescribed authority to close the matter for orders and only thereafter the order has been passed. j 1 After going through the jrecord and order impugned & after considering the submissions of t^ie counsel appearing for the parties, in ^^ ::"^; ^, /.- ".. ^ .-ff/ •^' -_..X1-KC—78 9?T?^1"^1'fe^W •nm 3i1^-T ^Hi-oF ^ "g^ ^i^Krt<J, ^hFT^, f^T^fy •^^;200 .3?i^?T ^?7 (^it^yi) ^^nw -^ .!:_ ^N^?T ^ 'fe^ ^fF^K iT Sahu the considered opinion of this c|3urt, the petition has no merit, as the charges leveled against the petit oner were not denied by him, besides this, the order has been pas^ed after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Shri Pandey failed to p|3int out any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order p^ssed by the prescribed authority so as to invoke extraordinary jurisdictiojn of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle <y law that this Court, Sn exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under A^ticle 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interferi|ig with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases whjere perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large or^ the face of the record, which is not in the present case. The petition is according|y dismissed. No order asto costs. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. — Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge