IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9374 of 2010 BINDESHWAR PRASAD, S/O LATE BHAGWAN SAH, R/O VILL. AND P.O.- BASANTPUR BANGALA, P.S.- AMNOUR, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA, PRESENTLY MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BASNATPUR BANGALA, BLOCK- AMNOUR, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. …….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN AT CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. 6. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, SARAN AT CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. 7. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, MARHAURA DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AMNOUR, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA. …..RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S.B.K.Manglam, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, S.C.22. Ms. Kalpana, A.C. to S.C.22. --------- O R D E R 09/ 01.09.2010 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 27.05.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) which was communicated vide memo no.4014 dated 27.05.2010 (Annexure-11) under the signature of the Deputy Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.4) by which the petitioner was removed from the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Basantpur within Block - 2 - Amnour in the district of Saran under the provision of Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the power under Section 18(5) of the Act has to be exercised by the executive authorities only when the State Government is armed with cogent and sufficient materials in support of charges and not merely on the basis of mere allegation against an elected representative of the people. In this respect, he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Sharda Kailash Mittal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 2 S.C.C.319. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there were no complain from the beneficiaries against the petitioner and it was only the Panchayat Secretary Dineshwar Prasad who sent letter dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure-2) along with affidavit dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure-3) to the District Magistrate, Saran (respondent no.5) alleging that the Mukhiya (petitioner) forged the signature of the said Panchayat Secretary and obtained Indira Awas for 52 persons from the Block Development Officer, Amnour and by force realised Rs.15,000/- from each of the beneficiaries and hence it was requested that legal action be taken against the petitioner. It is also stated that on the same date the District Magistrate asked the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Marhaura, Saran (respondent no.7) to enquire into the matter and - 3 - report, whereafter the said Deputy Collector made inquiries and submitted his report dated 03.12.2008 (Annexure-4) to the District Magistrate recommending legal action against the Mukhiya (petitioner) and issuance of show cause notice to Block Development Officer, Amnour, Saran (respondent no.8) for the irregularities alleged to have been committed by him detailed in column nos. 1 to 4 of the said report. 4. On the very next date, FIR bearing Amnour P.S.Case No.67 of 2008 dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure-6) was lodged by the Anchal Adhikari, Amnour on the directions of the District Magistrate against Anchal Adhikari, Tariya, the Mukhiya of Basantpur Gram Panchayat (petitioner), Nazir, Block Development Office, Amnour, Branch Manager, North Bihar Regional Gramin Bank, Basantpur and Block Co-operative Extension Officer, Amnour for offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. Furthermore, the District Magistrate, Saran (respondent no.5) sent letter dated 04.12.2008 to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) recommending initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the Block Development Officer, Taraiya and also stating that with regard to other guilty persons, the District Magistrate was taking necessary action. - 4 - 6. It further transpires that on 31.12.2008, the District Magistrate, Saran issued show cause notice to the Mukhiya (petitioner) who sent his detailed show cause on 12.01.2009 (Annexure-5) stating the entire matter in detail and requesting that he may be discharged from the allegations levelled against him, which according to him, were absolutely baseless and frivolous and were levelled only because of enmity. 7. The District Magistrate, Saran sent letter dated 20.03.2009 (Annexure-7) to the Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar (respondent no.3) requesting that steps for removal of the Mukhiya (petitioner) be taken under the provision of Section 18(5) of the Act. Thereafter, show cause notices dated 13.05.2009 (Annexure-9) and 01.06.2009 (Annexure-8) were issued under the signature of Deputy Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.4) to the petitioner, where upon the petitioner submitted his detailed show cause dated 11.06.2009 (Annexure-10) to the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar (respondent no.2) giving reply on each of the points raised against the petitioner. Finally, the impugned order dated 27.05.2010 (Annexure-11) was passed by the Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) holding that the allegation against the Mukhiya was proved and hence he was removed from the post of Mukhiya with immediate effect under the provision of Section 18(5) of the Act. - 5 - 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allegation against the petitioner is that he only assisted the Block Development Officer and others in noting the names of the beneficiaries, whereas there was no allegation that the petitioner had himself forged the signature of the Panchayat Secretary. It is also argued that no complain had been raised by the beneficiaries against the Mukhiya (petitioner) for extraction of any money and it was only the Panchayat Secretary who had raised such objection, but in the inquiry report also no material had been found with respect thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the impugned order of respondent no.2 is contradictory in nature and was against the materials on record and even the investigating officer in the police case has submitted its report (Annexure-12) that allegation against the petitioner appeared to be false. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that the Supreme Court in case of Sharda Kailash Mittal (supra) had clearly held that holder of office, being democratically elected office bearer, his removal from office, which is an extreme step, must be resorted to only in grave and exceptional circumstances and not for minor irregularities, especially when the action of removal castes a serious stigma on personal and public life of office bearer concerned and may even result in his disqualification to hold office for the next term. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned action of the authorities is directly in the teeth of the said decision of the Apex Court. - 6 - 10. On the other hand, it is claimed on behalf of the respondents that the then Panchayat Secretary of Basantpur, Gram Panchayat gave written application to the then District Magistrate, Chhapra supported by an affidavit clearly stating that the Mukhiya (petitioner) after forging his signature had withdrawn money of 52 beneficiaries of Indira Awas Yojna and on information, the Block Development Officer was not taking any action against him. It is also averred that the Panchayat Secretary had categorically stated that the Mukhiya (petitioner) had realised Rs.15,000/- from each beneficiary and had also stated that the Block Development Officer had also received money in the said transaction. 11. It is further stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the facts of the case clearly disclosed that the Panchayat Secretary recommended names of only few beneficiaries, but the petitioner named 53 beneficiaries after forging the signature of the Panchayat Secretary and the beneficiaries in collusion with the Government officers and out of them 4 beneficiaries came forward to give statement during inquiry against the petitioner, whereas rest were all fake persons. Hence, action taken against the petitioner is quite legal and justified. 12. It was also stated by learned counsel for the respondents that show cause notice and sufficient opportunities were given by the District Magistrate as well as by the Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna to the petitioner to place his case and the petitioner submitted his show cause before the - 7 - concerned authorities, considering which final order was passed by the Panchayati Raj Department, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 13. It is further averred that Section 18(5) of the Act gives ample power to the authorities to take such steps after observing due process of law and it is quite apparent from the record that the authorities concerned had adopted the proper procedure in accordance with law and only thereafter had passed the impugned order. Hence, the authorities concerned have not committed either any illegality in law or any irregularity in the procedure while passing the impugned order. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case as well as the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that at first the District Magistrate and thereafter the Panchayati Raj Department had taken all due steps in the matter and impugned order had been passed after fulfilling all the formalities, including issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner and also after considering the show cause of the petitioner. Merely by showing a report of the investigating officer in the criminal case the petitioner cannot prove that the entire proceeding adopted by the authorities was illegal and baseless. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the process adopted by the authorities concerned. 15. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that inquiries were made in which it was specifically found that some of the - 8 - beneficiaries appeared and gave their statements supporting the allegation against the petitioner, whereas with respect to the remaining beneficiaries, it was found that they were fake persons. This was a very serious allegation against the petitioner who was the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, but his action was detrimental to the interest of the people of the Gram Panchayat which he represented. Hence, it is quite apparent that he not only committed grave illegality, but also eroded the confidence of the people who had elected him as their Mukhiya. 16. So far the decision of the Apex court relied upon by the petitioner in case of Sharda Kailash Mittal (supra) is concerned, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had not committed any minor irregularity, rather he had committed a very serious illegality detrimental to the system of Panchayat Raj and basic democracy itself. Furthermore, the allegations having been well proved as is apparent from the impugned order as well as inquiry report and the communications of the District Magistrate and other materials available on record, the authority concerned was quite justified in passing the impugned order against the petitioner. 17. Accordingly, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order nor does it find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)