HC—78 sn^Twtow '?TSH 3TT^?T 5h+li<t> Sv5f '^WM^, ^Tfid'l^, Rlrtl^y inwn" sbNiab UOP^io^^&r "V^ 200 sn^r iisra; (Tpf^?<f) TOITW flfer 31I^T PETCTIONER/ APPELLANT A^ijuram Vanshe, son of bukalyram Vanshe; acjed about 34 years, By Caste Satnami, Si^rpanch, 6rom Panchayat Kusrnund, Block a^a' Tahsii Aarmg, uistrict Raipur (C6). -Versts- RESPON&ENTS/ RESPON&ENT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Hfkritai Sonkar, son of Shri Sadaram Sonkar, r^sidenf of yiilage Kusmund, Biock and TcAsil A^rwig, District Raipur (C6). THe Sub Divisiona! Officer and Prescribed Officer-, Aarang, Abhanpur Headquari-er, Di ktrict Office, Raiour (CG). n maiav Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel ft>r Shri Pr-aveen Das, &v. .2.3and4. •4E- c|irai?l%ll'l HIHdT T?.fs'<) ^fai^K i; siRpr sil^l THe Additional Collector, Raipur (CG\ Tlje &irert'or, Panchoyat. Chhottisgarh, KB|ipur (CS). Tl^e Grwn Panchayat. Kusmund, throuah its S€|cretary,6ram Panchayat Kusmund, Tahsii cmfcl Biock Aarang, District Raiour ((®). under Ah-icie 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) : Hon'ble Shri Justice L.C. Bhodoo counse! for the petitioner. rsspondent No.l. ©ovt. Advocate for the Stote/resoondents 3D^T ?CT R;-iJ5b 'cT^n' SIT^T sh^iert 3^' "MI'MI^, »Tn'M'IS,Rlciiyy W^v{\ **<!<* •V^ 200 an^yr wv (^if^^sr) TRITW ^lfW 311^1 ques|t-ion Heard iearned counsel f The petitioner has Drel the Constitution of India dated 14-1-2008 passed by th revision, whereby iearned D Additionai ColSector. ftaiiaur &ivisional Officer/Prescribed Section 40 of the Chhattisgar 1993 {forshon- "the /idhiniyai account of financial irregulor duties as Ssrpanch. irief facts teadinq to fi herein was etected as Sarpancl January, 2005. One Harilai against the petitioner herein t' the Adhiniyam, 1993 aliegina t duty of Sarpanch of 6rwn Pan the Panchcyat pond amountj R&20.000/- from one Sambhu. receipt whereas aaainst the < Sanibhu he did not issue any r| .^PL cards to ineiiaible person^ ctiprf<n-ii1'T tTpraf ^fs^ <F>)t$i< '^sifinaii^r ;br the oarties. Ferred this writ petition under Art'icle 227 of sing the legatity <& correctness of the order ija Director (Panchayat) Chhatt-isgarh, Raipur. in rector affir-med the order passed by the ^ated B-10-2007 affirming the order of Sub Authority doted 16-7-2007 passed under [i Panchaydt Rcy Avam SromSwaraj ^dhiniyam, f», 1993^ afS removing the petitioner herein on fties committed by him while dischcrging the ing of this writ oetition ar®thst the petitioner |i Of 6ram Panchayat, Kusmund, in the month of Sc^ikar (respondent No.l herein) filed a complaint (> the prescribed authority under Section 40 of hat the petitioner herein vuhite discharflina the |chayat, Kusmund, collected the lease money of |ng to Rs.6.000/- from one Chaitrwn md In respect of Rs.6,000/- the petitioner issued tunount of Rs.20,000/- received by him from ^ceipt. Apart from that, the petitioner issued Receivinq this complaint a preiifflinary enauiry XI-HS— TE^ "i|l<ll<7><<, 9Tfly'l<o, Rdiyy *<1*<^1 **11* •W], 200 sn^T ?ii R-<i<b ^Tsin 3fH^?T Sh+licb 3n^?r 'VR! ('pf^a^r) ^<ITW ^ifta 3ii^r amouht was handed over to the Panchav said Organization submitted il found thot receipt for an but receipt for cm amount of R; gave the receipt to the person other charoes also aqainst the the oetitioner herein and the pi considering the evidence & ai Officer reached to the conc! r-eceived the iease money of tl Sambhu. Petitioner issued rec^ he did not issue regular receipl any entry was effected in the slmply he gave in writing on th^ the amount in the Panchayat- al Learned courssel for thei iiliterate person and the Bank deposit the amount for two mj notcome within the purview ofl ^.l!egal & perverse. <:t)l*l[cl'i)l*T Hl*1<;'tl* ^ff^*^ <Pn^f< ^sifiiHan^r 'fftt &, Socia! Service Oraanizstion, Aarang. The >fs reporf' dated 26-11-2006, in which it was of fts.6,000/- wos issued by the petitioner, t.20.000/- was not issued & on a letter pad he [who depostted the said amount. There were Ipetitioner. Show cause notice VBGS issued to krties were aliowed to adduce evidence. Affer juments of the parties, the Sub birisiono! jsion that on 2-7-2006 the petitioner herein |e pond from two persons namely, Chaitram & ypt in resoect of Rs.6,000/- to Chaitram, bjt of Panchayat for Rs.20,000/- to Sambhu nor lconcerned account book of the Panchayat and leti-er pad. Only on 23-9-2006, he deposited :count <md on the same day, he withdrew the petitioner argued that the petitioner being an was not in the viilage, therefore. he could not inths and this conduct of the petitioner does financioi irregularity. Therefore, the findmg ^dditional Coilector & E)irector, Panchavct is 3^5f "ill^l^, »Tfiy'i<o,Ritfi^^i ^Wvt\ *t|l* W[, 200 SII^T ?il f<-fi+ ^^T •37T^T ?h+licb W^?T'WR ( lj<i|(^«l<yST) WdTW ^lfOT 311^1 On the other hand order-s passed bythe Sub Divis Panchayat. Havin9 heard learned le on recorel. !earn^d counsel for the respondents suppori'ed the |onol Officer, Additionai Coitector & Director, received an amount of Rs.20,000/ reQtflar oond. Without issuina the his !ett-er pad and no entry Panchayat. Only on 2^,-9-2006[ the Panchoyixt and on the same said thot the findina of the Su| moterial. If tha Bank was not requ'ired to issue the !~egular| fts.20,000/- by Sambhu and h< account book of the Panchayalt Sonkar was made on 28-9-; deposited bythe petitioner in book of Panchayat. Thereforel purview of gross negligerice in d| Section 40 (1) of authority may after such enqdf Bemove an office bearer if he I ct)i^[^i4li ^wv^ '^^^ <P>|<-$|< ^R <4Rw ^i^i cbunse! for the parties I have perused the |It is admitted position that the petitioner '- from Sambhii against the leose money of receipt, the petitioner gave in writing on Iwcs effected in the account book of the 1. the amount was deposited in the account of Uay jt was withdrawn. Therefore, it csnnot be i() Divisjonal Officer is without any evidence or |n the villace then ot least the petitioner vuas receipt of Panchayot reqardinq deposit of should have mode necessary entrles in the on the same day. The comolttint by Harilal and on 2jgtr9-2006 the amount has been occount and entry was made in the account the case of the petitioner comes within the Ischarqe of the duties under this Act. Aphinlyam, 1993 envisages thot the prescribed ir/ as it may deem fit to md<e at any time, has been auilty of misconduct in the dlscharoe 2006 flhe F1,,! 3S? "i|i<i !<•»<<, QrflwKo, IsK'ii'yy 75- NWcfl **11* •Wi, 200 SW^V 1I51W (1pfy?ff) sn^v ^T R'li* ^TT STI^I St)+lich ijiiiNwn—^ '?IRiT^ ^Tft^ 3H^5T of his duties cnd gross neaiig^nce in the discharge of the duties under this act has been considered as the| In the motter of Suryik Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003 AER SCW 3872) the Sitireme Court held that; "Under Articl of cerriorcri is aji 1-iiqh Court'; exe( ori9inai jurisdictj revisional or c< supervisory juris|J or set aside thel but it may aiso circumstances o-f guiaing Tne inTeqi which it would no| to or guided by 1-ligh Court, whi] substitute such JmDuqned decisioh haye made. Sup|e the Constitutionl Courts within th| subordinate Coudt not have or hasl does have or exercised by the| failure of iustic^ the High Gourt CM'4l<n<H'T +ii+i^if ^^*<.l <f^i'(^i< ^rsiRpTsii^r 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ exercise of its originai jurisdiction by the teise of supervisorv iurisdiction is not an |on and in this sense it is akin to appellate irrective jurisdiction. In exercise of liction the i-ligh Courf may nof oniy quash impugned proceedings. judgment or order make such directions as the racts and the case may warrant, may be by way of icr Courr or i ribunal as To Tne manner in |«proceed furt'her or cfresh as commended p-he High Cour-t. In appropriate cases the |e exercising supervisory jurisdiction may a decision of its own in piace of the ), as the inferior Court or Trlbunal should i|ervisory jurisdiction under Art-icle 227 of is exercised for keepina the subordincri-e the has assumed a .jurisdiction which it does faiied to exercise a jurisdiction which it jurisdiction though avaiiable is being fcourr in a manner noT permiTrea E>y iaw and or gro.ve injustice hasoccasioned thereby, may step in to exercise its supervisory d ...i';£":f;''^;'^, fiif;,,,»."K; •'.!>,, y ~S:5sf ^\w\^, w^[w , ^iflwy, ^ 6 ^Wvil *<41«b W^ 200 SIT^T ^i Ri-ii'* w sn^i *Mi°b K \ o^y^- an^FT W3K (4<t('l«i<itl) TOIIWntef CT^I Therefore. in view of t| interfere with the order of thd *i<if<'t4i-f iii*Rff<fft^ <r»it<(i< ^sffiriTSK^i fie above judgment. this Court is entit!ed to Tribunai only where the Tribunai has assumed a jur'isdiction which it does notlhave or has failed to exercise the .iurisdiction which it does have and exercisl by law. In the present case. on ^ while discharQinq the duties ofl from Scanbhu aqainst the lease he kept the said amount withl 29-9-2006 thereby aft-er two when the complcint against hi; Officer, Additionol Collector &| jurisdictiond error. The finding zd the jurjsdiction in a manner not cermitted nquiry it was found thet the petitioner herein Saroanch collected an amount of Rs.20,000/- moneyof pond without issuina regular receipt him and he did not enter the same in the he same was deposited in the only on months the amount was deposited that too irreaularity was made by l-1ariial Sonkar on 28-9-2006. For the foregoing reasojis, I am of the view that the Sub &ivisionat Director, Panchayat have not committed ony fe of the said Courts are based on the fflctericl available on record, which cannolt' be said to be perverse. In the resutt. the writ peh'ition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Conseauentiy, I.A.Nos-1,3 ^- [ & 3 stand disposed of. Sd/- .„ ^.C.Sbadoo judge