SsiKJfil F !'IP!"fi6<i •^-B.i,'.^^^ g^^^";?..'^^ © Li-? PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTjSGARU WritPetition(C)No. ^'95^ of 200® Wshanlal Sarthi, S/o Pakluram Sarthi, Aged about 32 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat: Chandrapur, Teh. & Distt.: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. - Versus - ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Collector, Janjgir-Champa, District: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 Sub Divisional OTficer (Revenue)/Prescribed Officer, Dabhra, District: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4. Gram Panchayat: Chandrapur, Through the Secretary, Gram Panchayat: Chandrapur, Teh. & Distt.: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ,5. Janpad Panchayat: Dabhra, Through the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat: Dabhra, District: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PET1TION UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THE CONST1TUTION OF INDIA FOR iSSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS. DIRECTIONS ETC.. IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTiORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ^ ^^f^^^^y^lj^f^s^f^^a^^^i.^^y^s..^ XI-HC-22 3I1^?TqiT R-fi'bsn^r st>*<i'=nflfer 3^ •<ll<<ltl<l, aTnwis, fioiuy OTi^ra^ ?'c^'y W( ; 200 R<"«A "'"" fTWII StaHKh 3T1^?TWtIIWElfer wbs 02.01.2007 Shri Sanjay K A9rawal Shri AS Kachhawaha, 4 / State. None for respondent Niji. Heard on admission cndl Factual matrix of th^ villagers of Chandrapur u»as mf was enquired by Tehasildar. mcde available to him. Therefl 07.11.2006 i.e. Annexure P/3 Vide department order dated and it enquired the compl4 Secretary in detail and filec| charges have been framed been started on those charge^ the Chhattis9arh Panchayat vide order dated 29.11.2006 i.^ Petitioner's contentior) maiafidely. He issued two c^ enquiries have been initiated] proceedings have been initiat4d State urged that for diffef °hl'4f<"l'i|1-) tilfi'il ffte(^'<.Rlt<K ^sri^TSTI^T i(iith Shri HS Ptrtel, counsel for the petitioner. ^overnment Advocate for respondents No.l -to |i.5. |M.CV.)P.No.4969/2006. case in brief is that, a complaint by the |ide against the Sarpanch ond Secretary; that [To facilitate his enquiry, no documents were jore, on those lapses, show cause notice dated issued to the petitioner, u«howas Sarponch. 30.10.2006, an enquiry party was constituted |int a9ainst the petitioner and Panchcyat their enquiry report. On •that report, 11 the petitioner and re9ular enquiry hos jp. As empowered under Section 39 (i) (b)of R^j Adhiniyam 1993, petitioner was suspended I. Annexure P/8. is that, Prescribed Authority is acting \arge sheets for the sone charges, and two and without waiting for 90 dcys, election I. On oppu9nation, learned counsel for the (•ent charges, two separgte erKjuiries have adainst RKi XI-HC-22 3I1^?TW f?:tTO-3TI^T sn+iicb tfisa St'1111 padma ^ 3^H[rara4, ®Tn«'is,Roi^iy 3T1^T t^) iiiwi aiiw f 61 ^J7 V^ 200^ R'b«d 3I1^?T SCTRK tlfer 2. - susftension. been initiated and looking t< Prescribed Authority has invol^ed the Sarponch. 90 &ays p< Sovernment to confirm the I have gone throu9h all In show couse notice dated Oi the petitioner for non-produ^ complete enquiry by the enquir'l against the petitioner, u;ith charges have been framed cg^iinst cause notice dated 16.11.2006 petitioner relate to mis-opprop^ Neither this is a case o-1 nor initiation of enquiry or susj against the law. Therefore, Article 226 of the Constitutionlof Accordingly, WP No.f dismissed. <fti<iT<n<ft-fi ^iiHc'il'^'f^'-^ <[^i'SK ^siRlTaiI^T the 9rn/ity ond nature of the char9es, its power and jurisdiction and suspended (riod has been fixed only for the State ^ension. No election proceeding is in vo9ue. |the material annexed along with the petition. r.ll.2006, chcr9es have been leveled cgainst Ation of vorious documents whereas after pcrty, whatever alle9ations have been found ^eference to those altegations, 11 detdled the petitioner <md accordin9ly, a shodf (ics been served on him. Charges cgainst the ^iation of Panchayat fund. two distinct enquiries for the same char9es ^ension of Sarpanch is without jurisdiction or (lo interference is called for by stepping in India. t995/2006 & M.(W.)P.No.4969/20Q6 are Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge (Ift^^fe^)