PETITIONER : Shyamlal LILGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 12272 N0. 6075/2008 Versus RESPONDENTS if; \__ The State of Ciihattisgarh and others ORDER \ Post forW ~8~2009 Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge PETITIONER Shyamlal S/o Late Bhagchand Dhivdaude, aged about 54 years, Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Semariya, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur (CG) Resident of Village and Panchayat Semariya, Tehsil Arang, Distt. Raipur (CG) Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, DKS Bhawan Raipur (CG) The Sub Divisional Officer and Prescribed Authority, Arang/Abhanpur, Headquarter at Collectorate, Raipur (CG) The Additional Collector, Raipur (CG) The Director, Panchayat Raipur (CG) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Arang, Distt. Raipur (CG) Ramji Sahu S/o Gajadhar, Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Semariya, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS Present : (Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Shri P.K. Tulsyan, Adv. For the petitioner. Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate, for the No. 6. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER , (1‘7 -8- 2009) \Instant petition is directed against the order dated 2—9- 2008 passed by the 4‘11 respondent in Appeal Case No. 125/A—89/O7—08 arising out of the order dated 31-3— 2008 passed by the 3rd respondent in case No. 09/A / 89-31— (15) 2007—08 which arose out of the order dated 20—1 1-2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, i.e. the Prescribed Authority in case No. 26—B/121/2006—07 whereby the aforesaid authorities have passed and HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 6075/2008 h afiirmed the order of removal of the petitione from te r h pst of Sarpanch of Gram Pchayat Semariy under o an a io P Sectn 4O of the C.G. anchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (brieny the Act of 1993). 2 . Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected Sarpanch of ram Panchayat Semariya, Block Arang, G Distt. Raipur, CG. Upon a complaint of the 6th respodent, the Prescribed Authority directed nquiry n e through the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pnchayat, a Arang i.e. 5th respoent, who found irgularities nd re md e comitte by the petitioner While holding th post of Sarpanch to the effect that the petitioner did not pay the amount of Samajik Suraksh Pension, Old Age Pension, a Sukhad Sahara Pension to the beneficiaries ur nde the Governme scheme and having noticed paid the nt pension amount to he beneficiaries too late for the t month of October, November nd Deceber, 2006; a m anchayat record were n properly aintaid; did-not P s ot mne follow the rules regarding purchase of bulbs and street gh 9 h lits; kept Rs. ,000/- in cash with him wich was withdrawn for construction of latrine. 3. Be on the quiry rert, 2nd respondent initiated asd en po proceedings under Section 4O of the Act of 1993 and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed its reply. Both the parties led evidence regarding their rival contentions. , The 2nd respondent on a close sci~utiny of the evidence led and material placed on record passed the removal order of the petitioner in terms of sub—section (2) of Section 40 of the Act of 1993. The 3rd and 4th respondents ailirmed the aforesaid order and dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioner. Shri P.K. Tulsiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the enohiry report, the entire charges leveled were not found proved by the enquiry officer and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the 3rd and 4th respondent is bad and deserves to be set aside. Per contra, Shri Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State and Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent had passed the order after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after recording evidence in detail. Both the appellate Courts have also dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioner, and therefore, no illegality / material irregularity has been committed by all the Courts below and the concurrent finding arrived at by all the Courts below does not call for interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. gel“ . i ‘6‘ I have gone carefully through the records of the case. The instant case is one of the rarest cases in which the Prescribed Authority has passed the order after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the appeal preferred there—against are dismissed by the appellate authorities after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is settled law that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction, when a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. 9. In view of the aforementioned settled position of law and in View of the fact that the Courts below have passedthe orders after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned orders. 10. The petition fails and is dismissed. Sdl- ‘ NK. Agrawaf Judge