&< UT.CU rr»IBT np n iriT/'.ATi IBC AT aT! ^epi 10 tf c, \ 0_*^H t^^VH i Ju?T uVUAw^lViSG ^ 1 O^l.i^^rVK L^.^J PETHION N0.2335 OF 2003 Umesh Sonwani, Aged about SOyears. 5/o Shri Kartik Rdm Sorw'ani, R/o Villqei Bhakhara, Teh. Kurud, Distt. &hamti3n (C.6.) 1,1ersu; RESPON&ENT5; 1) 2) ^\ ->J Tne State of Chhattisgarh Throuqh; 5scretary, p^-r"i.'--^i^^<"A D?^' r'!ff'?^.i'K:J'^'i'?t£»?i4" ryrs^'i'iyyyi r^-^j yspyi'ii'fiSfii, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rsipur (C.6.) T^& f^,Uss-~.»,yi r's!^^iy,4^w; 'ff ^ \ i i^^ ^/^rfi i?^^ i ^^i » ^^f ^^li ll S ^Al "i i ^^ >^^ ^ i"'?-^11^*".'*!?'> PsS i ii^ V<'^iii,,>»ii Ui , i^TJUi The Sub Divisionai Officer, &harntari. Distt. &hQ"'tori (C.@.} ^\ -tj Jhamman La! Sahu. Up-sarpanch, &ram Panchayat Bhakhara, Teh. Kurud, Dlstt. Dhamtcri (C.&.) POST FOR OR&ER ON 29th Auqust, 2003 ^5!-~ L.C. Bhadoo judge .ifflic- 700'' ugusT, <;uu L^ tr)-: HIW COURT OF JUD2C.4TURE AT BIL.4SPUR (C.&J WRFT PETETEON N0.2335 OF 2003 PETETIONER; Umesh Sonwan'., Aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Ksrtik Ram Sorm'ani , R/o Viiltge; Bhakhara. Teh. Kurud, bistt. &hamtori (C.fi.) Versus inM^FMTC- l'. Tha <+n+o n-f "h'.l.t++!.w,—!" T:%-^i"-<Ui-S'>i i i»3> Aj s iiS lutiUiS; uj ^rsriyi iis^us'rs Throuqh; Sscretary, Panchayat Rqj Department, D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Coilector, Dhomtari (C.6.) ;i ^i^ r^hs'i^^'^'^^i ivv'v^^s'vt &hGmtori, Distt. t>hamtoTi (C.6.) 4) Jhamman Lai Sahu, Up-sarpan&h, Gran'. prmchayat Bhakhara, Teh. Kurud, &istt. Ohamtari (C.S.) P"s^.£?^n+: u^s^i 5 3 ' Sh"i Parag Kotecha, Advocate: For the petitioner Shri Ranbir Singh, ©ovt.Adwcate; For the Stute/respondents 1, 2 a 3 Sefore: Hori'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo. J ^ES |\ I; g^ UK U £K (Passed on 29 August, 2003) 1. By this petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of Indic, the petitioner has challenged the order' dated 25.07.2003 passed by the Coilector', Dhamtari (respondent No.2), in case K-]s.25-A/89(Q)/ 2002-03 by which the learned Coliector had dismissed the oppeal fi'ed by the petitioner aaainst the order dated 3 June, 2003, passed by' the Sub uivisional Officer, uistt. Dhamtari (respondent No.3) unde;;* which the Searned Sub Divisiona! Officer passed an order under Section 40 of the Maahya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter ^?': •^'f3y"ssfj '^'fs ^ssf 4*1" i ^si't's-u iy us i of the Sarpanch. e Adhiniyam'), removing the petitioner from the pos- The petitioner's petition is thut the pstitioner was uuly elected Sarpanch of B-fam Panchayat, Bhakhra. The Panchayat consists of 20 members. Few persons aiong with respondent No.4 made a compiaint GQSiHST Tr1^ pS.TlTiGHSr. ^TT^r raCdVIHQ THa COH^plulHT GH SH£|Uiry committee was constituted by respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 was appointed as a rnember of the sa.id committee. Tne said committee ffiade a report after enquiring into the ai'egations agcinst the petitioner (Annexure P-l). After receiving the report, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 40 (1; cf the AahiniyGtT). Ths pstitionsr submittsd his rspiy to thg show causs. Respondent No.3 ignoring the objection "aised by the petitioner passed fina! orde" on 03.06.2003 and removed the petitioner from 'Hie post of Sarpanch against which 1ne petitioner filed an appeal befors the ?r?m^^ ^nlia Sarpanch against which 1ne petitioner fw ,l!gs>"+r:" hhrs»¥i+ii"?'I ^^^f^nnrl^i?t+ Klr-1 ?^ Coilector, Dhamtan (respondent No.2). Tne iearned CoSiector dismissed the aoueai under order Annexure P-i5. The cctions of respondents 2 & 3 are iliegal, arbitrary and contrai'y to iaw and against r t ) • . s • •~v~\ 'pl t i»h• • -• ' /^- f ^' i 1 > ^"^ t-^; £-^i-?^ l ^~- ?.?=& crs ^s^ s^^3'^? y yf^: i ^3 ^ ^'^r?^T^^ t 1^vr^ ^lh; ?i?*fr ^'^?1JE-^ ;>'"'•-"lrf? S f ^='?^"?' ? ./^^ =^ ^ i ?J?^^ TT?r "^r1 Tn€ pFiHCipieS OT HCTTUrGi JUaTiCS. }'H€. OUD L/iVi^iCfiCii ^TTiC^F' GUgH i 'iO fldV^ JHiiii^TSa prOCSBOinyS ug^iH^T Gll Tfi'S. KGHCiluS iHCiUSIiHg ^©Cr^Tury instead of initiating procesdings against the petitioner mainly on the ground thut money more inan Rs.2,500/- was kept by the petitloRer instead of depositing the same in the Bank though it is not a case of misappropriation of money. Therefore, the orders of the ieamed Sub uivisiona! Officer and the Coi!ector be set uside. 3. I have hsard the learned counse! for the petitioner and ths iearned Govt. Aa'vocate for the State/respondents 1, 2 & 3. 4. The main grievance of the learned counse! for the petitioner is that respondent No.4 himself made a complaint along with some other persons against the petitioner and respondent No.3 made him a membsr fzl -^ of the enquiry committee which is against the principies of natural justice, therefore, whole enquiry stands vitiated. Tlie second grievance of the counsel for the petitioner is that 1+ie enquiry committee as weil as the S.b.O. reached the conciusion that irregularitie.s were committed not oniy by the petitioner, but aiso the Secretar-y of the Panchayat as well as other Panchas were also responsibie, ther'efore taking action oniy against the petitioner excluding other persons is also bad. 5. It is settted law that in the jurisdiction undsr Article 227 of the Constinjtion of India this Court cannot sit as an appeilate Court and decide -the'issues as an appeliate Court. Under Artic'e 227 of the Constitution o.f India, this Court can interfere wifn the finding of the impugned order on!y when the principies of natural justice are violated or •1+ie enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Saw and ruies or when statutory rules are not followed or if the finding of 1+ie concerned authorily contrary to law. In this connection, it wii! be beneficial if we !ook into Section 40 of the Adhini'y'am, under vuhich the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch. Seetion ^ f\ .f^^ *^cl-^-^"*t -B/=li?^ ^&n ^*i ^^i yz*a l^-s^-^^t ^-JM£.?5^5 "^i-*^ .^T-'^*' ^U OT TH6 ^iQfliHiyGiT) IGyS GGWH THGT S StfsS' ^'^yS°t:--S' /'•^-^t.'.-Gtj^flFyS^f^'t- 'irl ^Aa.-i? ^^^.^.-"y's^ey^ ./T/<'"W-?,^*sj--fl/ E^s.-^a./ *^/ y / e5 W Vi£i'fffHSifi f wl' fff& jJf 'C«?d/Yi«/Su uiJ SfSUs 7 /^' s'iii^y after such enquiry as it may fit to at any time, remove an office bearer- /?^J( ^l/^.^?" ^SJS^/^y' ^^^ V^i^^-f^l^^is {ztL''v^' ^y^ ^h^f^ f~s}^^^-^'PJSf^f'y (w/ // nsi nus> u&ii^a yunsy Ui s'Ht^^ufsuu^.' sn /ffS, uis^ffurys^ of his dutses: o" (b) if his continuance in office 'is undesirabie in the interest of the public: Provided that no persan shall be removed unless he has been given an opportunitf to show cause whyhe should not be removed from his offsce. " In the exp'ianation, the word 'miscona'uct' has also been defined. &Q 6. In this case, there is no ailegation that the petitioner was not given any opportunity, rather it is on record that after conducting 'lTie enquiry, u show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he was given opportunity for hearing. AAoreover, during the enquiry also whoie time the pstitione" was present and he was given opportunity to cross- examine the wilnesses ana produce his own evidence. 5o, there is nci procedural flaw in the inquiry. The only grie.'ance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 was himself signatory to the ccmpiaint upon which the enqulry was instituted. Thererore, he couid not have been made the member of the enquiry committee. 7. In this connection, if we go through the record, u committee ccnsi.sting of four members was constituted by the competent authority of which AA" TP <S|nii[.-|i.t P^M^^-i/^4-^. <?^,-.^| F^i ^rt^ii-yE D^.-^^ty,^-?^^ ^,|^,-.-"'K-^^ ^;/'^ i'v\r. ij.r« ../HiJt^iy, mriOTiuyex i c( <ui^uiui CLSUs-uiiun ^'ryctTiiA.s^r, ijnuni:un, wu^ nominated as Convener of the Committee and other member's were A*r. Mohan Singh Gaur, Mr. Dashrath Singh Gaw and Mr. Jhammari Sahu (respondent No.4). Therefore, in this enquiry, respondent No.4 was not L. -, ^rs^.^s ir'i^E^I "hhg? .5'ri"; !ir:\f ^'irir'! ^h^gyi^/^a^ ^A^^rf^ j"^.^ ?^ •-?^ ^ ^ ^c'-'c^^^ ^5 '?fr^?1^ --^ii^t ^t^ E 3 *^\ ? ^^-^ ^f^.^^ ^'I^F ^a fi?''L ? ?fSiy psrson WHG CiOfiGuci^u ti'iss -c-rsquif'y. A^yr'Es/vsir'/ AiLi was the Convener under whose supervision the enquiry was conducted and the compiaint upon which the enquiry was instituted, respondent No.4 was only a signatory to the complaint. Moreover, there is allegation of 1+ie petitioner that rsspondent No.4 was in a position to influence the committee in order to pass an iilega! order or Oji order contrary to the record. A perusa! of the enquiry committee report, the finding of the 5.D.O. and the finding of the Coiiector reveal that fu!i opportdnit/ was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses based on the record and the committee not on!y examined the various witnesses but also perused the "ecord and the finding of th& committee is based on the evidence of the witnesses which was examined in the presence of ttie witnesses. Moreover, the said report of the commit-tee was placsd before the Gr&m Sabha, the ©ramSubha with a thumping majority approved the report, and in that report, tha ^~y^^n ^^f^^t a^t ^?^^ ^run ^t ^1^.^^ "^ i-I*^i .^n? ^^^^ y^ ^?!^:^? ^'^' '^SLi'^^^^s ^'-'^^T; } 3 aj:] ?^^i^^S 3 |/^ ^r] ^-?rt^^-Sa d*?¥^ij^ ^-~^ ^'^.•. ^"^l ^'. LilEgCXTiOH Syuifi2>T Tri£p^iTslOfiSF' UPQUV iifiUfiCiCIi irf'SyUlUf'l j'is-3 QfSQ UTn-£;; S i--?i'?F"© t?t?^rtf^?tt.?£?"l ^i^^ F'^S?4'sA:f-^e^s^ E""t<i"i'A' ^•w.S.-^E j'^ri5i"J '*'E^ S' iAi~f~it-"IJ' ' ?-?5~H:^ .^•.s ',-'•" ^i'surysis wfu'r^ uppi'uv&u. i iis- ps- i i i ivns'i' yy s tt'A^.'^iiU i c'u 1 i is,. wyi~i\ ififi siiiy'w; ggTTiUg |T GpproVSO TrOiTi TsiS iGHCiisxysT GfiG iiUQS QmounT n^ K^pT Wrif; him without depositing the same in the Punchayat account. Without approval of the Panchayat, the petitioner withdrew t!is amount of i^ ^'a -j^ ^ C3 y^ ^ y^ ^^y^/4 t^s/'? /ti^j^ jc^f":^" ^'^•^-~/s^*i ;'^-.^-?^4 .^--^ yT^^^ t"t '.£.~.?->tyil^ ±?^ 3^T;'A»^j,^i; E-A- ^^ ^^ »A^?-^^3 ^-^ -4^-, ^- ~i<.S.C.i^U^3/~ CHG H£QiSO 9^''' S^SSUTSG CSrTQEri WQFKS WITFiOUT g©'mrigTf1£. SppFQVGi OT T?1£ iGHCiiGyGT. ^pGFT TFOiTi TsiGT (liTiGUHT GT TnS [TiOnTiliy ^^^^n^-? ^~^?^? ^^'t' Sii^ijiii^ uiT Tiis iSneHGyiST wniCii Tfi£ p^TiTionsr rsc'sivso vvQiS rsOi OSpOSiT^Q ifi THS iGHCiiSyilT (SGCGUriT. -LH pQiiG^i.iS QT ui£ TiiiaiH^ OT Tii£. fN /^ :-a- L,^;_x L^^g^ !^^l^t Ai-_-;4. „.;_ L,;,^^ —i^3^5;s-4-i's.i-.-e'. L^-s^4- '"i---- 4-Lt.."s i-i"-4-^^^"r,-.-iL~-. >.U.U., IT nG3 D€€.nH^iQ TfiuT a nUg£ulTiOUnT WCS K€pT Dy TH£ pSTiTIOH€r with him which was contrary to the ruies. Out of ten charges, charges 1,4, 5, 8 &9 were found proved by the committed against the, p£TiTIOH£r< ; iESiSTOi^, TiiS iiHQiilg OT TH^ COri1iT^iTi£©ES ifiOiS Ot ISSS li->^^ ^''."'^ ^l.^^-'3J^ .MF^a^^^ ^n E /w^^ ^li;"^ '^pl-F5 J^.^^J L. , DCS^O OH THs FSCOrO GHCl GlSO OH TfiS DQSiS Oi Tii^ ^visi^ncB dGaucsis Dy various witnesses. £S. J-fi VI£W QT THS SjiUQTtOH, ?Ti©r£iyGfi Tii^ Qrouna TuGT rssponcisfiT i^o.i;7 wcis siyncTory TO Tne coinptuiHi oncj ii£.wss s i^^rnDs.r Oj iiia coniiTiiTTs^, the enquiry cannot be considered as vitiuted, becajse the petitionai' iiQS HOT OS'Sfi QDi€. TO ©3TQDiiSi1 THQT OH CiCCOUHT OT QTi-/ DiGS OT respondent No.4, the enquiry was vitiated. As far as the question thu" afiwt from the petitioner, the Secretary and other Panchas were a!so responsible for the said irregubrities, it is true tiiut tt'.s then ^scr^Tsry unci soms iGHCiiGS wsrs dso TOUHCI rsspor'tSaDis Tsr TH£ iiHeu'iCiGi irrsQuiuriTisS cmo Tii&y wsr^ pciiTy' TO TH©irr£QUiGiiTi£.s. 1 ne learned S.D.O. ought to have taken action and initiated enquir),' against those persons also, but it is unfortunaTe that the 5.D.O. has not taksn any action against them. But only on that ground, the petitioner cannot escape from the responsibiiity for which he was u party. Mor'eover, being a Sarpanch and head of the Panchayat, he was in charge of the whole affairs and therefore, more responsibility rests on his shoulders and he should not have uilowed such irregularitiss to hqipen. /^- ^- L/n Tne 62-. contrary, hebeca.me pariy to that. Therefore, on this ground also the petitioner is not entitled fo" ony relief. In view of the abdve, I do not find cuiy force in this petition as orders of the S.D.O. as we!l as the Collector are based on reasonings, report of the committee and the record. There is no flaw in ony manner in the aforesaid orders. Therefore, the writ petition is iiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. r<-t»* sar-" L.C.Bhadoo Judge r-0 \ ^*afl v w^