H IGH COURT OF CHH§TT§SGARH: SILASPUR Writ Petiiion (CWOJ 867i2$09 Petitioner Sm: Pushpa Gendie, Sarpanchi aged about 34 years, Gram Panchayat Padampur, Janpad Panchayat Mungeii, Tahsii Mungeli, Disitric’t BHaspuL Versus Resnondents 1) Staie Govt. of Chhattisgam Through The Secretary; T:§bal & Soda! Weifare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 3) CoHectcr, Biiaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) 4) Sub Divisionai Officer (R), Mungeii, District Biiaspur (CG) A. P. Kashyap Sic Not Known, Additionai Chief Executive Gfficer, Ziia Peneheyat, Biiaspur (CG) 6) R. K. Garg, S/o Not Known, Assistant Engineer, Ziia Pancheyat, Biiaspu: (CG) Erector, Panchayat, Raipur {CG} ?) Shri Raiesh $harma, Sic Noi Known, Faod inepecier, Mungeii, Ziia Panchayat, Biiaspur (CG) 8) Smt. Kunjan Wife of Shri Sakhwaram, aged abeui 45 years, RIG Gfam Panchayat Padampur, Janpad‘ Panchayai Mungeii, Tansii Mungeii; Disirici Biiasnui‘ {Wilt Petition undei" Articie 2261227 of the Constituiion of indie) SB: Hcn’bie Mr. $atish K. Agnihotri, J. resent: Shri M. K. Sinha, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for the State. 7 DRAL $RDER {Passed on this Wt“ day of Aprii. 26W} With the consent of ieamed counsel appearing for the parties, the oetition is heard finally. 2) By this petition, the petitioner Challenges the legality and vaiidity of the order dated 28-02-2009 (Annexure— P11) passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in revision No.2261A—89(i5)i05.07 wheieby the revision tiled by the petitioner has been rejected. 3) The indisputable facts. in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner. are that the oetitioner wasan eiected Sarpanoh of Gram Panchayat Padampur, Janpad Panchayat ’Mungeli, Tahsii Mungeii, District Bilaspur. Viiiagers of Gram é Panchayat Padampur made a compiaint to the Coilectors Biiaspur on 26-37-2006 against ther irregularities committed by the petitaéner in the development work undertaken by the» Panchayat. On the basis of the said ccmplaint, pteiiminary enquiry was conducted by the Additional Chief Executive Cfficer, Ziia Panchayat, Bilaspur. in preliminary enquiry, it was found that the petitioner has committed several financial irregularities. The Enquiry Officer recorded his findings as under: W:— W/W/Wga‘sqeWmWinmw wamavmns‘ssnmsi 1, mwewwwnw enmmw—saw Wmehmgwsimmnmw W‘%§m%i wwwmmesmm Wehwsi 3. 51im iigxziu # I Duaun a! aag mix :ggi gal ”an A 81 4. Wwewmmmmwmmwm wmimasl I 4) Thereafter, show cause notice dated 09-10-2006 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his detailed response to the said show cause notice on 18-16-2006. The Sub Divisional Officer {Revenue} being competent authority having examined the enquiry report and the repiy submitted by the petitioner, passed the order dated 13-11-2006 (Annexure — PIG). The relevant portion of the same reads as under: wwWmwwswmo WhWWwwmghmsmW Wnsswwwmmahmotnétlm Wahd$§iwna€rm¢dsh§iwdamw WdWWemmmHWWWd (3%?. twat Tm % 33?; a3 LC%3 shim” W W gaff la’mi W %l ?i Q w W-xw~: W m, W W§§¢ WWWWUWT§WH§IW( §§ 7n H wwmw§q§§E-‘#WW% ‘* =§W§EWWWW§IEWm W Vk mWw§1WWWPr%Hw 3i i lE W .m Eitm W $19!? 35! F.r£.*m?. Hzmm gm ‘FQKEF. WW%lW$WI§WW‘$WWW WW?WHWWE§VWWH§ W%%EWW%ma*amaww WWWWW%IW$WWW#— mWmWWmaa§i€m§ WW WWIEIWWWW TngW WW#W@WW%WW!E WvmzgmwmWVéiwn": WWWWWWWWW£r wW$Wi§w§f€aa€a®%wwWw WW §$W§Wwmwaasmm% \,Q,,W§1WQ.WWWE§WW%H& arrm§mWgmwwmWW W#Ww%mmwmwm W$WF$Q$WWWWWW§IW k WW$QE0$eW$WWW %W{W)Wa§r%mwi Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Uivisional Officer; the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additionai Collector, Bilaspur. The Additional Collector by order dated 17-05-2007 (Annexure P-7) affirmed the tinding recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in respect to the allegations of financial irregularities made against the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, revision was preferred before the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur which was also dismissed by order dated 28-2-2009 (Annexure — Pit). Thus, this petition. 5) 5) The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the basic principles of naturai justice has not been foilowed, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in preliminary enquiry. Mere issue of show cause notice is not sufficient as it does not comply with the ' requirement of basic principles ot natural justice. 7i Per contra, Shri Shashank Tl‘iakur. learned counsel appearing on behalf otthe State, submits that compliance of principles of natural justice does not {equire conduciing a regular enquiry. issuance cf show cause notice and thereafter opportunity to me respoase to the show cause notice are sufficient for compliance of principles of natural justice in accordance with provisions of Ruie 4O cf Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,‘ 1993 (for short " the Adhiniyam, 1993”). 8) i have heard iearned counsei appearing for the parties, perused ihe pieadings and the documenis appended thereto. it is evident that the petttioner was given sufficient opportunity to submit his response to the show cause notice as per the statutory requirement of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Therefore, the contention of iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner that principies of natural justice has not been followed is not tenable in the facts situation of the case. Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 reads as under:- "40. Removai of office bearers of Panchayat - (1) The State Gov roman: or the prescribed authotity may after such enquiry as- it may deem fit to make at any time, remove an office bearer- {a} If he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or (b) if his continuance in ofifce is undesirabie in the interest of the pubiic; Provided that no person shell be removed unless he has been given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed from his ohice. Expianetion - For the purpose of this sub-section “it’lisconduct’ shat! inciude - (a) any action adversely affecting -— i) the sovereignty unity and integrity of India; or ii) the harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst ail the peopie of State transcending reiigious, [inguisticx regional, caste or sectionai diversities; or iii) the dignity of women; or é {b) gross negiigence in the discharge of the duties under this Act. (c) the use of position or infiuence drectly or indirectly to secure employment for any reiafive in the Panchayat or any action for extending any pecuniary benefits to any reiafive, such as giving out any type of base, getting any work done through them in the Panchayat by an odice bearer of Panchavat. Explanation - - For the purpose of this clause the expression ‘relafive’ shall mean father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, mother~in-Iaw, father- in-law, brother-in-law, sister—in-iaw, son-in-iaw or daughter— in-iaw :j T Rf; Provided that fhe finai order in the inquiry shaii as far as possible} be passed Wifhm 90 days from the date of issue 0f show cause noiice fo fhe concerned officer bearerj (2} A person who has been removed under sub- seciian {'f) shaii forfhwith cease to be a member of any oi‘her Pancheyai of which he is a member such persan shali else be disqualiiied for a pen‘cd cf six years tc be elected under this Acf. " 9) Law in respect of principles of natutal justice is Wei! sewed that the principles of nature! iustice cannot be put in a straitjackei iarmuia. in Viveka Nanci Sethi vs. Chairman, J 8. K Bank Ltd. and Others‘, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “22. The principle of natural iustice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principie of estoppei will appiy. iSee Gurjeewen Garter/val {BL} v. Dr. Sumitra Dash {(2004) 5 SCC 2631 The principles of natural iustice are requirect to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. it cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. tt cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. [See State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh {(2904) 8 SCC 129} and Karnataka SRTC v. SG. Koffurappa {(2005) 3 SCC' 409]. 10) ln the present case show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and reply has been filed by him to the said show cause notice, it amounts to compliance of principles of natural justice. Thus, l do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Director, Panchayat, The same is just 8. proper and needs no interference. 11) tn View of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. ' r Consequently, i.A.No.1 stands disposed of. l Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri l-1 udge y i ] K Tumane \ > J