-B '» IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION(227) N0 2-'9t-^ 72011 ©BSll PETITIONER Kunu Lal Sarpanch Village Panchyat < (Non-Complainant) Kudakai Janapad Panchyat Pendra Dist BilaspurC.G. Versus RESPONDENTS ^-\'. Sundar Lal Citizen and voter of village (Complainant) ^ ,,All Kudakai Tahsil^and Dist-Bilaspur ^ Chief Executive Officer Janapad Panchyat Pendra Bilaspur c's- Sub-Division Officer Pendra Dist Bllaspur Additional Collector Pendraroad Dist Bilaspur C.G. Ganesh Shrivash former Secretary village Panchyat Kudakai, resident of village t Patgawa, Tahs'il Pendra, Dist-Bilaspur C.G. <J>^> WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE727 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ^y ^'"js^'n^-'" ^' ^^ ..••"'' ^^" ?- .. : INDIA s •SA'.. HIGi-t<C6l-iRT:Q^C!-IHATTiSGftRH:^Bll-ASRUR :;.: y.WgtT^EyiriONl:(22^NQ&291S;OF_28li. PETITi RESPONDENTS Versus SundarLal&Others (WritRet!tioriunderArtiGl&227<rftheGonstituti6n<rfindia) SingleBench :i-lon'bieShri Satish K.Agnihofn.J. Preserit:- SKriYog^ndra CKafurvecii.ndvocate^rthe^p f .ORDER'ORftt.) ifR (PassedQnthls,2Sl"day;ofJune,^2011) 1. ChaUenge in this petitiQn is to the order dated 25.Q4.2011 (Annexure P-1), passe3 bv the Additionai^ .Corrimissioner, BiiasDur Division; Bijaspur. irr revision case Nb.12Q<A-89(15).p9-10, .againsi •ths order: aSeS OZS&2009, :passeci.^by :th®..Additipnal;;Coliecton, Pendra .Roau,' iilasDur.? ::":l:'.'^:''i'::^.::^hRli:^::l^;;.':^ :..'.: ':!.: Thel;:^fs:,'in^Mef,Aare:that.a^c<^piaint.:was.i!6dged.^ oetitiohei'' bv the resDondent No.1 makina.as manv as 13 senous allagations of embezziement, of: the Gram PanGhayat fund. The Prescribed ©fScer-cum- Sub Divisional Officer (for short "the S.D.O."), Pendra Rpad,, registerecl, a' case under, the. proyisions ;Qf. the Chhattisgarh Panchavat^.Raj; Adhiniyam, 1993,,.(for. 'iSlioit, l°ffte; fldhmfyam -?993") and.a shbw cause.nonce with charge sheetwas- issued under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam,'.1993. The petitift^ submitted his repiy tothe'said shpw,eause.r)otice;anci spot inspectifip wasaisoro&d^.The.prescribed.authQrityheid^tl^the^^^^w^ satisfactory, however, witharawa) of some amount was contrary to th6 procedure as Eaid'down ynder proviSions of iaw. Thus, the S.D.G. closed ths case' on giving warning -tOibe careful in:;fijture, :by;order^ dated 24.03.2008 (Annexure<R-4).Hoiaingasund9r:......:,^ y^:ui-:^ •^^lc!4^,^>i^s{; ;§TO^,^^'^^ ^^^T^.-^gT^j'li^^^^^'li^^ •i'!' :Mi "l^i- ;.^j!'li !i!.i! ir'i w •^rI^^'^®IC?l'^S^:''5T l:'3:;r^ ^lj:^^^©^^.^i^f^,':?^.^:.'5iqT^-^ ' f^ZfT ^:'3^:,g^::g^1^'^^^^^ t sra: iw'^PTf TN^^SfRtq 'f^ ^ ^3!T fu^ <^*i¥fl' <& 'R^tri W^^^ ^ ?pt ^Tf^RW Q?1' SIT7T 40 ^ PTso <T? ^ ^cTt "TT^ ^ f^rotTFTCTT? Sft? TTTTC^fr 'qiJf.'cRTif 'cpT^ cfiT ^r^wm-^^ftti" ^- ^f cSiqqigl -<E] ull 3. Thereagainst, an appeal was fiied before the Additionai Coltector, Pendra Road. The Additiona! Coltector, after having considered ail the aspects ofthe matter, came to the conciusion that the petitioner, the| then Sarpanch, has kept money, which is not permissible under provision of law and deposit of the illegaliy withheld money subsequentiy does not absoive the petitioner frqm iilegat action committed by him. The S.D.O., according to the Additionat Coiiector, was wrong in holding tbat since hs has deposited the money in Govemment Treasurv after sometime, therefore, he cou'd not have been he!d as resDonsibls for embezzlement. Thus, the order of the S.D.0. was set aside and the appea! fiied by the respondent No.2 was a51owed,on 02.02.2009. 4. Thereagainst, in revision fited by t'ne petitioner, the Additional; Commissioner, Biiaspur Division, upheid the finding racorded by the Additional Coilector, holding t'nat despite having a sum of more than Rs.25,000;'- for expenses, the petitipner had withdrawn the money time and agaln without anyjustiflcation, which was againstthe provisions.ot Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayats (Accounts) Rules, 1999. 5. i have heard learned counsei for th~e parties, perused the pleadings gnd documents appended thereto. , . 6. The findings recorded by the Additionai Commissioner is just and Drooer, in accordance with rules. Thus, no interference is warranted in^ exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the; Constitution of tndia. .-./ 7. i%: |t'is.al:trite'law:ffiaf'th^:Nigh''C^uTf^in^ issueofwrit pf certiorari or supervisory jurisdietion under Article 227 of ths Constitution of India, would not convert itseif into a cpurt of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluatjon of evidence or correct errors: in drawing inferences or correct - errore ^ of, mer?;^fQrmal|®rs technical-characfer. :. : .•.:;••/ ': , •: : . '^ Supreme Coust, m Atsdul Razak (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors. v. 14/^fe & Ofters , observed as under: "21...Therehave been severalother iristances . in which different High Courts have oassed orders iri exereise of power under Articles 225 or 227 of the CQnstitution of India disregarding the iimitations identified and indicated by this Court jn severai decisions on the exereise of that power. 'we hope and frust that in futuFe the High Courtswould keep inviewthetimitations of csrtlorari jurisdicSion/ supervlsory, juMsdiction and refrain from deciding the wnt petitions fiied under Article 226 or petitions/applications fiied anderArtlcie22ToftheConstitutionas If they are adjudicating appeals :flled against the orders of the tower CQUrts or other .ludiciai/quasi-judicial bodies/authorities." ' ,The ratio.laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with'approval mShalsni ShyamShetty & Anotherv. RaJendraShankarPatiF. 'iS^^SiSSiS •« In the case on hand, no jurisdictionat error, in pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exereise of ro 227 ofthe Constitution of India, is hot inciined order which is iegai, just and proper. Firmity or irreguiarity has been > Dower under Articie 226 and t6 interfere with the impugned 11. !n viewor foregoing, the writ petition ss dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Judge ^shok