1> c^-;^-L IN THE HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. \ ^X OF 200^- | <C5 , / PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: v ,^^ ^^"^1 ^>^-^(.-\f ^^i^y' .'••" \w -s" ^^ ?p^¥j f/ff r,'xi ^^^iT'' ^^} ^-^^ ^Q.^^ E*w c^,M^W vs Sundarlal, son of Shri Siddhuram, Upsarpanch; £ram Panchayat Khondhar, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir. 1. State of Chhattiisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Director, Department of Panchayat, Raipur. 3. The Collector, District Janjgir. \ 4. Shri Paltan Chauhan, son of Not Known, resident of Khondhar, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir. ; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 A THE CONSTITUTION OF INOIA OF ".'~\ HtGH COURT OF CHHATTtSQARHAT BILASPUR SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNiHOTRI. J. Petitioner Resoondente WRIT PETITION (C.l N0.128 OF 2007 Sundarlal versus State of Chhaffisgarh and others Present : Mr. Ajit Singh, counsel for ttie petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Govemment ^Jvocate for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. H.S.Patel, counsel forthe caveatorfrespondent No.4, ORDER ff3assed on 13th Day of Febraary, 20)7) The petitioner has filed this petitien chailenging ttie order dated 5-12-2006 (P-1) passed by the Director, Panchayat, whereby an appeal, being appeal No.116/A-89(15)/05-06, fited by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The tects of this ease, in nutshell, are that the petitiener is the duly elected Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khondhar. The petitioner and other Panchas made a complaint before the Sub- Dlvisional Officer (prescrtbed auttiority), Dabhara maldng allegations of misuse of the official position again^ respondent No.4 - Sar^nch. There was a serious comptaint of tinancial irregularity and defaicrtion to the tune of Rs.2,50,257/-. The Sub-Divisional Officer (preseribed auftority), Dabhara, vide order dated 29-5-2006 (P-4), held that the allegations of financial irregularitles have been found proved. Thus, respondent No.4 was directed to be remofved from the post of Sarpanch under Section 40(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panctayat Raj Adhlniyam, 1993. It was further held that respondent No.4 b®declared as disqualified Tor a period of 6 years. A direction was made to recover a sumofRs.2,50,297/-. 3. Against the said order, rsspondent No.4 filed an appeal, belng appeal No.194/A-89(15)/0§-06, before the Additional Collector, District Janjgir-Champa, The Additional Collector, by order dated 28-8- (P-2) in that appeal, held ttiat the charges have been found proved on the basis of mere statements and proper opportunity of hearing was not aflbrded to respondent Ne.4, the then Sarpanch. Accordingiy, the order dated 29-5-2CX)6 (P-4) of the Sub-Divisiond OfRcer (prescribed authority), Dabhara was quashed and the appeal of respondent No.4 was allowed. 4. Against the order dated 28-8-2006 (P-2) of the Additional Coilector, an appeal was made by the petitioner b^ore ttie Directbr, Panchayat, wherein the Director, Panchayat held that the order of ttie Additional Coilector Is perfectly l^al as e order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside on ttie ground that the atl^ations were found proved on the basis of mere statements without providing sufRciait opportunity of hearing to the then Sarpanch - respondent No.4. Thus, the appeat of the peWoner was rejected by order dated 5-12-2006 (P- 1). The said orderdated 5-12-2006 (P-1) is impugned herein. 5. On perusat of fte impugned order dated 5-12-2006 (P-1) as weil as the pleadings and the documents appended Biereto, there is no infirmity or irregularity Tound in flie impugned order passed by the Director, Panchayat and as such it does not call for interference with the impugned order by this Court in exereise of power uncter Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. 6. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to eoste. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge I. - L