c s' ^ s B8n IN THE HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISQjmH ATBELASFUR (C.G.^ WRTT PETITION N0 >-*».is'- 6^ L***** '• ^;"s^se^ ...••:""'^1' ^;"~ .-<»* .^•••^n.^g^ 2. s%,^ •Q^ •-<> RESPONDENTS €^^L y^f^is^' jW'"'\'T/.^^^S>^""^ Suraj Bhan Sinha S/o Shri Devdhar Siriha aged about 35 years, Resident of Village- Chicha Post-Gabdi Tahsil - Gunderdehi, Dist.-Diu-g(C.G.) Smt. Keshar- Bai W/o Shri Tuleshwar Prasad Sattu aged about 35 years, Resident of VilIage-Chicha Post-Gabdi Tahsil-Gunderdehi Dist. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. ^2. State of Chhattisgai-h, Through Secretary Panchyat Depart. D.K.S.BhawariRaipur{C.G.} The director ofthe Panchyaf DepartmentD.K.S.Bhawan, Rarpur Dist. Raipur (C.G.^ Ttle CpUector/Distncf|Ele^f|£>li Qfficer (Panc&yat) E)urgf @i^t;- .Burfe,(e.G.)'::,1:''- ^' ,',^ 1?ie Ta3asildaFyFBeturning officer (Psxu^sc^ ^sSisQ- GimderdehiE)isf.Dui-g(C.a,) Smt; Somlate Sahu, W/Q?SFhl Roinlal Sahti, Sarpaacli of' Gram Panchyat CKicha, SosV Gabdi, Tafasil-QulideEdehi, Dist-Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION IWDER.AICTICLE 226^2^ OF ^ 5. THB COIINSTITUTICW ^FINEJ^I^RISSB^GEQE^ IN N^TUI^ OF CBE^TliEil^Ri.iMAieEiEM^ AND:::OTHE^^Sira3FAB]LSfejWi@^^:iWaBiII^ DIKECTIONS. ORDEROR^ORI33@RiES: Thepetitioners above-namedmostresii^tfullysubmitasunden^ 1. PARTICUI.AR&t)Fl*HE ] As mentione<a mtheysgtuse titl&i 2^ P^N3CT ARS @EK'I^S RE^I^HnMEat'TSt '."'f.T",• l'':-:: ^As mention^ Ml^ Ga-ilsB ^ttle^bwe. s^v^Mss^ THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGrARH : BILASPUR Wnt Petition No. 726 of 2005 Petitioners Respondents Suraj Bhan Sinha and anofher Versus- State of CbhattisgaTh & others ORDER ^^, Postlor ^o-2-20QZ^ Sd;- . Satis^•sv JttdS® feotn H Jfi IN THE HIGH_COURT._OF CHHATTISGARH :. BILASPUR Writ PetitionNo. 726 of 2005 Petitioriers Respondents SuTaj Bhaa Sinha aad aaother Versus- State of Chhattisgarh & others vsy Shri R.S. Patel, Advpcate fortbe petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Venna, Dy. Govt. Advocate for ttie respondents No. 1 to4/State. Shri Yashwaut Singh, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 5. ^ Q R D E R (Passed on ^O Day ofFebmary, 2007) This order offhe Court is passed by Justice Satish K. Agniliotri. 1. By fhis petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 18.11.2004 (P/8), whereby the revision filed by the respondent No. 5 agamst the order dated 16.10.2002 (P/4), passed by the Sub Divisional Ofi5eer, Patau, District Dui^ iu Case No. 43/A- 89/02-03 aad the oider dated 31.1.2003 (P/5), passed by the CoUector, Durg in Case No. 3/A-89/2002-2003, was parfly allowed. 2. J? The iadisputable facts ia nutsheU are that fhe petitioners are soine of fhe complainaiits against fhe respondent No. 5, who is elected Sarpanch ofVfflage Panchayat Chicha. Accordiag to fhe petitioners, fhe respondent No. 5 ia the capaeily of the Sarpaach had coiiunitted serious irregularities causing financial loss to the Gram Pauchayat. On the basis ofallegations inade ^ i^ iiii 3. by the petitioners, fhe Sub-Divisional Officer conducted the enquiry aud after haviag considered fh.e case on fhe basis of oral evidences adduced aud docuiiients produced before 1iim held that the aUeged serious UTegularities conunitted by fhe respondent No. 5 were found proved. Thus, the Sub-DivisipnaI Ofiicer ia exercise of his power under Section 40 (l) of the Chliattisgarh Panc,hayat Raj Avam Gram. Swaraj Adhimyaiii, 1993 (hereiaafter referred to as 'the Adhiuiyaui, 1993') reraoved the resppndent No. 5 froin the office of the Sarpauch, Gram Panchayat-Chicha, Block-Gunderdehi vide order dated 16.10.2002 (P/4) wifh im.mediate effect. Purther, iu exercise of liis power under sub section 2 ofSection 40 of the Adhiaiyam, 1993 declared fhe respondent No, 5 as disqualified for a period of 6 years. It was further held that fhe Secretarv was also responsible for fhe aUeged serious u-regularitifis eonunitted by the respondeut No. 5 as Sarpanch of Gram Paachayat-Cbicha. Thus, appropriate action be mitiated against hini. Being aggrieved, tfae petitioner preferred an appeal, beuig Case 3/A-89/2002-2003, under Section 91 of the Adbtaiyam, 1993 before the CoUector, Durg. The CoUector, Diu-g after haviag heard both fhe parties aad haviag considered the enquiry report aad other facts of the case caine to the conclusion that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer needed no mterfereuce. Thus, by the order dated 31.1,2003 (P/5),the CoUector, Durg confirmed the ordcrdated 16.10.2002, passed by fhe Sub^Divisional OfBcer. . 'v' X, 4. Beiag aggrieved, fhe respondent No. 5 preferred a revision, being Revision No. 284/A-89/03-04 (Conuaissioner, Raipur Case No. 27/A-89/02-03) before the Director (Panchayat), Chhatdsgarh, Raipur. The Director (Paachayat), by the order dated 18.11.2004 (P/8), held ftiat m. fhe enquiiy report dated 28.6.2002 several charges aUeged agaiast fhe respondent No. 5 were not found proved. The Sub-Divisional Officer, on fhe basis of stateiuents of witnesses and documents, removed the respondent No. 5 fi-oia the post of the Sarpaiicb aad declared her disqualified for a period of6 years. The AppeUate Authority, i.e. CoUector, Durg confimied the order passed by fhe Sub-Divisional Officer. Accordiagly, fh.e Director pardy allowed ftie revision holding that the order of removal, passed by fhe Sub-DivisionaI Officer, confirmed by fhe CoUector was proper, but their order disqualifyiag fhe respondeat No. 5 for a period of 6 years was set-aside. 5. On perusal, it appears ttiat fh.e petitioner was not heard aad the Director (Pauchayat) proceeded ex-parte, fhough it is clearly inentioned ttiat despite notice, fhe petitioner did not appear, nor did he file any reply or subinission. The Director partly allowed the revision to fhe extent fhat the order of removal of the respondent No. 5 was perfecfly valid aud just. Furfher, the second part of the order i.e. disqualifyiag her for a period of 6 yeare uader Section 40 (2) offlie Adhiiuyani, 1993 was quashed aud set-aside. The Director has not assigned reasons while inodifriag fhe orders passed by ftie Sub-Divisional Of&cer, confirmed by fhe Collector with regard to disqualification for a period of 6 years, It appears fhat the proper opporhuuty of hearing was not given to the petitioner. This is also a case of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed wifhout affording aa opportuiutyofhearing to ffae petitioner. 6. Thus, interest of justice would be suhserved if the matter is reinitted back to fhe Director to decide the case after affording opportunity ofheariag to the petitioner, in accordance wifh law. 7. The writ petition is accordingly aUowed. The impugned order dated 18.11.2004 (P/8), passed by the Director (Paachayat), Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Revision No. 284/A-89/03-04 (Coinmissioner, Raipur Case No. 27/A-89/02-03) is quashed to fhe extent of setting aside fhe prder of disqualification for 6 years, imposed oa fhe respondent No.5, passed by fhe Sub Divisional Ofiicer and confirmed by the CoUector. The matter is reinitted back to fhe Du-ector (Panchayat), Chhattisgarh, Raipur for decision on fhe question asto wheftier the orderftffhe Suto- Divisional Officer, confirmed by the CoBector, declaring fhe respondent No. 5 as disqualified for a period of 6 years was valid aud in accordauce wifb. law after hearing toofh fhe parties, withia a period of 3 inonfhs froin fhe date of receipt of a copy of tbis order. It is ordered accoidiagly. No orderas to costs. Jt- >y% Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge