IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6315 of 2010 PRAMOD SINGH, MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT- MURHAN JAMIN S/O SRI ARJUN SINGH R/O VILL.- CHHOTI JAMIN, P.S.- GORADIH, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION PATNA 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATIRAJ (ELECTION) NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 7. THE COMMISSIONER BHAGALPUR COMMISSIONERY, BHAGALPUR 8. THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 9. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PANCHAYATIRAJ, BHAGALPUR COMMISSIONERY BHAGALPUR 10. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS - CUM - DISTRICT PANCHAYATIRAJ OFFICER BHAGALPUR 11. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (FOOD) BHAGALPUR COMMISSIONERY, BHAGALPUR 12. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT CUM PROGRAMMING OFFICER BHAGALPUR 13. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK- GORADIH, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 14. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT-MURHAN- JAMIN BLOCK-GORADIH, BHAGALPUR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Pd. Singh. For the State Election Commission : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh. ----------- 02 11.05.2010 The petitioner was the Mukhiya of Murhan Jamin Gram Panchayat in the district of Bhagalpur. He - 2 - challenges the order of the State Government dated 18.03.2010 by which the order passed under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, he has been removed. The allegations are seven in number and they all relate to singular transaction of appointments of Panchayat Shikshak which were done in the year 2006/07, immediately after the petitioner was elected as Mukhiya. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings were initiated pursuant to recommendation made by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bhagalpur dated 12.12.2008 and after hearing the petitioner the order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes two submissions for challenging the order. Firstly, he submits that keeping in view the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sharda Kailash Mittal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. since reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 319 the exercise of power by the State Government was not justified. He secondly submits that it is not the Mukhiya, who is the sole authority for selection and - 3 - appointment of Panchayat Shikshak. It is a committee of the members of the Panchayat who do the selection and make appointments. Petitioner heads the committee but the decision is of the committee. It is, thus, collective responsibility and not individual responsibility for which petitioner can be proceeded against. Decisions taken are not of the Mukhiya individually but collective decision of the committee for which power under Section 18(5) would not be exercised as against the Mukhiya. In my view, the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the State Government on both the aspects of the matter. I may mention that it is not personal and individual dereliction of the Mukhiya in the matter. It is a question of collective responsibility. State would have to consider how far if at all Mukhiya can be individually proceeded against. State would also like to reconsider the propriety of taking action in respect of appointments made as far back as in 2006/07. The proceedings pursuant thereto having been initiated after two years and the action being taken further after two years. While doing so State would keep in mind that Mukhiyas are not - 4 - the employees of the State Government nor the State Government in that sense is the disciplinary authority over the Mukhiyas. It is an exceptional power given to the State, to the executive to set aside a person elected by democratic process, as has been noticed by the Apex Court in the judgment noticed above. All the allegations as referred to in the impugned order relate to, as mentioned above, a singular series of events of appointments. Apart from those there are no other allegations. State would reconsider whether in such a situation action could be taken against the Mukhiya or not. State has proceeded to frame charges as if in a disciplinary matter and charges having been true removal is a matter of course. That is not the law. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the order of the State Government dated 18.03.2010 cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration, in view of the observations as made above in accordance with law. The writ application is allowed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)