QM^mr Sena^ // c^'s^} IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. ^t^ /2011 APPELLANTS PETITIONERS Dev Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Samundar Lal Sahu, aged about 25 years, R/o Gram Kakdehi, Post Samoda, Thana Arang, District-Raipur (C.G.) I-—' 2] Ashok Kumar Netam, S/o. Panchram, aged about 26 years, R/o. Kangadehai, Post Samoda, Police Station Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) 3] Smt. Sushma Bharti Kurre, W/o. Narendra Kurre, aged about 20 years, R/o. Village Harinbhatta, Police Station Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) ^° ^ ^4] Tikamchandra Dhruv, S/o. Gopal Singh Dhruv, aged about 26 years, R/o. Village Mohtara, Post Konari, Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) si^/ ^ /' / . ^ .A^w A^/ ?/^y ^>* ^ ^ . '// Shyam Sundar Patel, S/o. Kamal Narayan, aged about 38 years, R/o. Konari, Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (G.G.) 6] Ramesh Kumar Dhruv, S/o. Baratu Ram Dhruv, aged about 28 years, R/o. Village Guma, Police Station Suhela, District Raipur (C.G.) ^7] Ku. Gangeshwari Taram, D/o. Laxmi Taram, aged about 20 years, R/o. Village & Post Kodikasha, Tahsil Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^8] Pramod Kumar S/o. Tikaram Rajak, aged about 20 years, R/o. Village Tulsi, Police Station Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) ^ /. VERSUS /2-. RESPONDENTS ^l] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) vT X. Collector, Raipur District-Raipur (C.G.) 3] Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raipur, District-Rai^i- (C.G.) 4] Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Palari, District-Raipur (C.G.) <" 5] Sub-Divisional Officer, Baloda Bazar, District-Raipur (C.G.) 6] Director of Panchayat, Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (ResDQndent no.l to 6 are resvondents/resvondents) 7] Sanjay Kumar Chelak, S/o. Shri Ramkhelawan Chelak, Aged about 25 years, R/o. Kangadehai, Post Samoda, Police Station Arang, DistrietRaipurCC.G.) 8] Smt. Tarini Sahu, W/o. Goverdhan Sahu, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Village Chaprir, Arang, Raipur (C.G.) 9] Smt. Gangotri Sahu,W/o. Bharatlal Sahu, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Village Lohsar, Police Station Chhura, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Raipur(C.G.) 10] Jai Kumar Baghel, S/o. Mamulal ighel, Aged about 23 years, R/o. Village Bagandari, District Raipur (C.G.) A? ^ti] Dhur Singh Fulkore, S/o. Bhagawani Ram, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Village Chillari, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) I-111 "^ 12] Shyamlal Chandrawanshi, S/o. Vishnu Ram, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Village Khadkhadi, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) CResvondent no.7 to 12 resvondents/vetitioners ) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SEC. 2fl) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT CAPPEAL TO DF^ISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 R/W. RULE l^fio) OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES.200sy <» <€! /^ HlGHCOyRTOFCHHA^TISGARy^BlLASBUR CORAM : Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha& Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma. J J. Writ Appeal No. 413 of 2011 Smt. Sarita Netam & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others And (Connected WritAppeal Nos. 415; 416; 417; 422 ^ 428 of 2011) ORDER For consideration Sd7- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHE SHYAM SHARMA 9 C^^L&^ Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Post for Order: ^0/0^2^11 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge lyn- m^'£^^ ^:.- ^ I 1 "^l "< •^ ;' ./ .^' ^ 1«N,- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM : Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Honlble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma . J J. Writ Appeal No. 413 of 2011 ATPELLANTS Petitioners RESPONDENTS Smt. Barita Netam & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Arisina out ofW.P.(S) No. 2935/2009) Writ Appeal No. 415 of 2011 APPELLANTS Petitioners RESPONDENTS Purushottam Nishad & Others ^JSSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Arisina out ofW.P.(S) No. 2848/2009) Writ Appeal No. 416 of 2011 APPELLANTS Petitioners RESPONDENTS Bisahatram Nishad & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Arisina out ofW.P.fS) No. 2108/2010) Writ Appeal No. 417 of 2011 APPELLANTS Petitioners RESPONDENTS Dev Kumar Sahu & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Arisina outofW.P.f227) No. 1151/2009) if !• WritADpealNos. 413: 415: 416; 417: 422 & 428 of 2011 fi Writ Appeal No. 422 of 2011 APPELLANTS Petitioners Kamlesi-i-&-Qth©r^ Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Arisina out ofW.P.f227) No. 1263/2009) Writ AppealNo. 428 of 2011 APPELLANTS Petitioners RESPONDENTS Ku. Neetu Nirala Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Arisina outofW.P.f227) No. 1263/2009) (Writ Appealsunder Section 2(1) of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court {Appeal to Division Bench), Act 2006) ^— Appearance: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe & Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State on advance copy. Fotlowing order Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. ORDER (20.09.2011) of the Court was delivered by (1) These appeals have been filed against a common order dated 8th of August, 2011 passed in a batch of 9 writ petitions by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By the impugned oTder the respective writ petitions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. 3 /!2^ Writ Appeal Nos. 413:415: 416:417:422 & 428 of2011 (2) We have heard Mr. Paranjpe and Mr. Agrawal, on admission in their respectiveappeals. (3) The appellants/petitioners were appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi, Grade-111 vide order dated 14.8.2007 after due selection process conducted under Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. After the selection was over, some complaints were received by Collector, Raipur. The Collector by order dated 27;T1:20-07rdirected the Sub Divisiorral OfFicer (Revenue), Baloda Bazar, District Raipur to hold an enquiry regarding alleged irregularities and illegalities in the selection process. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), in pursuance of the aforesaid order, constituted an enquiry committee comprising of Tehsildar, Palari; Block Education Officer, Palari; Block Education Officer, Baloda Bazar and In-charge Principal, Pandit Laxmi Prasad Tiwari Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Baloda Bazar, to examine the documents and record the statements of all the candidates. The allegations were in relation to submitting forged certificates by the candidates and allocation of marks on the basis of forged certificates. On enquiry, out of 133 Shiksha Karmis, information could be received in case of 97 candidates. It was found that in all the 97 cases the documents submitted by the candidates were forged, as the said documents were not issued by the concerned departments/institutions. It was held that since the documents submitted by them were forged/false, ^^ - /.. •^y y jficr Writ Appeal Nos. 413:415:416:417:422 & 428 of2011 ^ they were no eligible for selection. The F.1. R. was lodged against the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Palari u/ss 467, 468, 471 & 420 IPC in police station Palari and crime no. 135/2008 was registered. After all this, show-cause notices were issued to the petlti&neFs as to why tbeir-appQintmeRte-ma.y -not-be-canGeUeA -y/s 85 (1) af the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The petitioners submitted their replies, their statements were recorded and thereafter the order for cancellation of their appointments was passed by the Collector on 11.4.2008. Some petitioners challenged the order passed by the Collector before the Director Panchayat by filing statutory appeal, but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2008. Thereafter the above writ petitions were filed. (4) It was argued before the writ court that while passing the impugned order of cancellation of appointments, the Collector committed material irregularities and illegalities; the Collector did not appreciate the provisions of Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 in its proper prospective; the enquiry proceedings were drawn behind the back of-the-appetlants; therefwe, -there-was violation of principles of naturat justice. (5) The writ court held that the Collector exercising his power u/s 91 of the Adhiniyam 1993 read with Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, took up the matter in suo motu revision and passed the order of cancellation of f^ WritADpealNos. 413: 415: 416; 417; 422 & 428 of 2011 appointments after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petifeners. Aboatthe p^wetra-/^85-(°1=)^of=Adhihiyam, 1-993-and-^ao motu revisional power u/s 91 ofAdhiniyam, relying on the decision of J. Kumaradasan Nair and Another -Vs- IRIC Sohan and Others. (2009) 12 SCC 175, the writ court held that the Collector had source to exercise such power u/s 91 of Adhiniyam, 1993 and Appeal and Revision Rules^and the Collector has exercised the powers under the said provisions, therefore, the order was not bad- in-law on account of jurisdiction and authority. The writ court further held that the entire enquiry by the committee was conducted after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and thereafter show-cause notice was issued before passing the order of cancellation of appointments. Even after issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioners, the petitioners were afforded opportunity of hearing and they got their statements recorded before the Collector. Therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice. (6) Mr. Paranjpe and Mr. Agrawal have raised almost similar points which were raised before the writ court. The appellate order passed by the Director Panchayat would show that the Collector has ample authority to take matter in his revisional jurisdiction and to pass appropriate order. The writ court has also held that the Collector has power to set-aside the order of appointment in exercise of revisional jurisdication under Rule 5. We find that it was one of the sources from where the Collector exercised such power. .^—.,. /^ Writ Appeal Nos. 413:415: 416:417:422 & 428 of2011 Merely mentioning of a wrong provision in the show-cause notice or non-mentioning the provisions of law would not be sufficient to take away the jurisdiction of the Collector if it is otherwise vested in it by 4). law. This^what the Supreme Court said in J. Kumaradasan (supra). (7) So faf as non-cybsen/artee-©f af natur-al-j'y^iee -i^ concerned, we find that the appellants were afforded apportunity of hearing during the course of enquiry and after completion of the enquiry, show-cause notices were issued and ample opportunity was given to the appellants. Even their statements were also recorded. (8) On due cnasjder-atbn af the submissions made by learned counsel for the appeltants and the grounds taken in the writ appeals, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the writ court warranting interference in these intra-court appeals. (9) The appeals, therefore, are liable to be dismissed andare hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge vatti