IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11014 of 2009 TAHIR DAGH, SON OF JAINUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE POKHARIA, P.S. BAISI, BLOCK- BAISI, DISTRICT – PURNIA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PURNEA COMMISSIONARY, PURNEA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PURNEA, DISTRICT – PURNEA. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA. 5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, PURNEA. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK BAISI DISTRICT- PURNEA. 7. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PURNIA. 8. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BAISI BLOCK, PURNIA. 9. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIEV, KHUTIA PANCHAYAT, BLOCK – BAISI, DISTRICT- PURNEA. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 18.11.2009. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea respondent no.2 as affirmed by the respondent Member, Board of Revenue by which petitioner has been removed from the post of Mukhiya of Gram Raj Khutia under Baisi Block in district Purnea on ground of culpable abuse of power/authority as contemplated of Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act,2006. Petitioner’s challenge is short. Petitioner submits that petitioner had not committed any culpable abuse of power or - 2 - authority as contemplated under Section 18(5) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vrs. State of Punjab and others since reported in A.I.R.2001 Supreme Court 2524 and in particular para 11 thereof in relation to a paramateria statute of Punjab Municipal Act. Heard the parties. Perused the orders in question. In substance, the allegation as meted out against the petitioner is that being Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, he had appointed in one transaction, seven Panchayat Shikshaks who were holding Moulwi degree and ought not to have been appointed, as such the appointments were in accordance with law. Petitioner’s defence is that the same was permissible. It is submitted that even otherwise merely because a wrong decision has been taken does not mean that would be a culpable abuse of power/authority within the meaning of Section 18(5) of the Act. State submits that there is concurrent finding of the Divisional Commissioner and the Board of - 3 - Revenue in regard to the fact that the appointments were wrongly made that being so it cannot be disputed that the petitioner had not acted wrongly in making the appointment and thus he had abused his authority and rightly he has been ordered to be dismissed and debarred from further election. Heard the parties. In my view, the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself. I proceed on the basis of the assumption that the appointments as made were not in accordance with the provision of law though the petitioner asserts otherwise. It must be remembered that the petitioner is not employee under the Divisional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue or for that matter under the State Government. There is no master servant relationship between the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an elected Mukhiya in a democratic process and is the head of local self Government unit. Thus, see his position is different. He is not subject to any disciplinary proceeding as has been conducted. There is difference between - 4 - N.H./ Section 18(5) and the Bihar Service Code or similar provision of service codes. In the above referred to case the Supreme Court has clearly said that mere wrong decision is not abuse of authority much less culpable. Supreme court has clearly pointed out that there must be repeated illegal acts pointing to a clear abuse of power and authority. Even a series of wrong decisions cannot lead to such a conclusion unless it is culpable. These are drastic power to be used in exceptional circumstances. If for taking a wrong decision, a person is to be removed then all public servants who have in course of their employment taken a wrong decision somewhere or the other should be dismissed. That is not the import. If that is not the import of the statue, then the order of the Divisional Commissioner as affirmed by the Member Board of Revenue cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. The writ petition is allowed. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.) - 5 -