MtM'^ WIS'it'''^ Mlffi^ HIGHCOim'T^r ^Al8H[aftt^tofts R S.B.HON'BLESHRIDHIRENDRAMISHRA,J. WRFT PETITION (Cl N0. 1120/2008 ?. PEtmONER NOK-APPLICANT RESPQND3ENTS PuniFam Kastiyap Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others ORDER ^ POST ON f^JULY, 2008 sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge '^i^- iiiia m^'s^ [^~T ;l® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENIHIA MISHRA, J. WMT PETITIONtQlNO. 1126/2008 WMTPETTTIONUNDEERARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTn-UTIQN OF INDIA Verstis ;"-l'x. luj^ ^ PreseHfc'':'1':'1.'.''1.'.'.^' :'I'\,^' •• • ^hri Aw^dh Ti^athi, Gbunsellorthfi p^ j / : SIin Satish Gupta, GAIor State/i%sp(mdeHA No t to ^. Shri Pankaj Shnvastaya, counselior i^poiident No.5 lfc-,t^t.;.?S;^-?.^-:?..i'.(-:;:;:fc.'^ ii.^^^^M^s&^ PETTTIONER NON-APPLICANT Punirain Kashyap, S/0 Shri GangQL Prasad Kasbyap, aged about 38 years, OcGUpation-Ex. SaTpanch of Gram Panchayat, Amora, Tahsil & Vikas Khaiid Nawagarii, tMstrict - Janjgtr-Chainpa (CG) ; RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretaiy, Department of Panchayat,! DKS Bhawan, Raipur District - Raipur (GG) 2. Du-ector, Panchayaf Raipur, District KaipUT{CG) 3. The Addifcional Collector, i Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir- Champa(CG) 4. Sub Divisional Olficer/Prescnbed QfBjcer (Pancbayat) j Jarygir-C^^ Jaiygir-Chamtpa (CG) j i 5. Chief Exeeutive Qfiijeer;, Janpad Panchayat-Janjgir, Navajgarh, District Jaiijgu'-Chanipa(CG) 6. P.D. Lakda, Enquiry iOfficer, ADO, Janpad PanchEiyat, Janjgir-Chainpa, District Jaiygtr-caiampa (CG) - 7. Khamman T^s^ Tiwan, R/0 Villa^ Amora, TaIisU-Nawagarh, Distnct Janjgir-Cfaampa (CG); 8, Rame^bwar Prasad: Paitel, SeGretaiy, Gram Panchayat Amora, jTahsil- Nawaggii'ti, District Jarggir-Ctiampa (©©} iia !9 '°.-<. ORDE^j (Passcd on 16'^Jiily, 2008) Dhireadra BIishra, J j The petitioner was elected Sarpanch ofGrain Panchayaf-Amora, Janpad Pachayat-Nayagarh, Distt.! Janj^r-Caiampa. The Sub Divisional Ofi^er and Prescribed Authority,after registering a case iinder Section 40 of the CG Panchayafe Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short ^<the Act, 1993") directed fhe Chief Executive omcer, Navagarfa to condiict eRquiry, who submitted his report dated 8.2.2006 ta the Prescribed Authbrity. Qn the basis of above report, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, who submitted his reply before the Prescribed Authority and denied the allegations. AUegatton against the petitk)neF is that even after receiving the amount towards Old Age Pension, he;did not distabute it and kept it in the bank for months. In the enqiiiry report, it was menfioned that thougti fhe amount of pension fbr seven months (June, 2005 to December, 2005) was available m the Panchayafc jfand, h^ the same was not distributed regularly amongstthe beneficiaries. The petitioner m liis reply sytomitted thajt 40 persons were registered as destitute m the Panchayat,Iiowever,the^^^^^n^ II persons were deleted from the M$t and tlie Panchayat was being sent lount for 29 destifute persons. The Gram. Panchayat submitted applicatioh before the AdditiDnal Collecfor and Distrtct OfiEicer meritiomng tlierein the reason for not distributing th.e pension aniount. The Prescribed Authority did not accept the explanation pf the Sarpanch and held that depdvmg 29 destitute personsfa»m.the pensk)n amoiint, ainounts to grave irregulm^, con<^^ Sarpanch was inhiiman and accordingly, he was declarcd to be disquaUfied and removed from the post of Sarpanch. The Additiorial Collector even after recording aimding that fhe destitute Jankibai and Ranidhan did not die on account of nori- paymen^of pension amount and they died nafural jdeath due 1»old age; the Chief Executive OfiiGer has admitted thafc ffae petitioner addressed several coinmunications to the Collecboi^ Ctiief Exectitive Ofiicer, District Panchayat and Chief Ebeecupve j Ofiicer^ ^ Panchayat ahd souglit guidance m thfi matter, however, nb actiDn M was taken by them, rejected the appeal with an obsewation that fhe amount could be distributed^ to the 29 baieficiaries and fhe petitk)ner h^ ^ommitted a ^ave miscoiKiuct. j The revision prefeiTed by the petitioner was also rcjected by the DiTector, Panchayat by ttie impugned order of Annexure P/1. Leanied counsel for fhe petitioner submits tiiat fhe J Panchayat did not fumish listdf 29 persons, who were to be distributed the pensk>n aaiount, nor the listl of 11 persons was •I •'1::; ;''••' ^ .^ ' '. T' •:•'' / . .'::1^': •"; ..:'•'..! fumished, who were nof be paidj old age pensk>n ainouiit. The Panchayat addressed repeated requests to the Janpad Panchayat for du'ection in the above matter, as observed in the brder of ttle Additional Collector, however, his i communications did not evofee response and in these ctFcumstances, thej pensk)n was riot distributed. Since 1±te names of recipients of the pensioh were not clanfied, the Gram Panchayat as well as theIGram Sabha in its resohitk>n decided not tb pay ^trashrit PensK>nff (Destitute P^ and depostted fhe same in the bank. Ttiere isi no embezzlemen.t of Panchayafc fund. The Gtuef Executive Qfficer, Distnct PanGhayat and Jaiipad Pancliayat and. other senior Distrk^ Ofiicers are responsible for non-payment of penskm. to the benfifk;iaries jas tfaey did not reply to the repeated requests of the petitkmer. The order unpugned has been passed wifhout any enquiiy worth name and the petitioner was not afibrded any opportunity to defend hmiself. On the ofher hand, leamed counsel fbr tlie respondaEits argued that tiiree Courts iri their concuFrent fliidmg, haye Iield the petitioner guilty of misconduct in the discfaar^ offais dufiies and renioved him from the post of Sarpanch. In tliese circiunstances, no ihterference 1s called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Artide 227 of tiie Constitutk)n of India. Tfae petitk>ner was veiy much aware of the names of fhe persons, whp were declared disquallfied for pensiori by the previous Panchayat, however, the petitioner but of wengeance stoppedpayingpensiontoother29oldanddestitutepeFs basis of resolution of the Gram Paiichayatdated; 2^.11.2004 (Annexure R/1), the Chief Executa^ Ofik^, Janpald I>^^ Janjgir (Nswagarh) caiicc^d the pension sancticmed iii^emaiQe; o{9 -^ beiaefieiaries vide order dated 25.|7.2006 (Annexiire R/2^. It was ftirjtfaer argued that after removal pf fhe peti^^ feom ^hfi post of Sarpailch, eleetipn fbr jaUing flies vacant post of Sarpanch wa& nofified, the petitioner Punirain contested fhe eleGtion and Jailal Kashyap was declared elected as Sarparich defeating the petitioner. Thus,the petitioner by participating in tlie election of Sarpanch has acquiesced with impugned order of tlisqualtflcatibti and the petition is liable fbr dismissal fbr acquiescence| and waiver. I have heard leanied counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on records mcluding the orders passed by the Courts below. The short question for consideration ia fhis petition is - (i) whether the petitioner wUtfaUy did not distribute the destitute pension to 29 beneflciaries even after receiving the saine from fhe Chief Executive Ofiicer, and (ii) whether the act of the petitioner was such a grave misconduct and gross negligence in the discharge of his duties, wan'anting his removal from the office ofSarpaach? In the tastant case, as it appears, the erstvyhile Qraui Panchayat forwarded a cominunlcation to the Chief Executive Ofiicer along with resolution of the Panchayaf requestmg to delete the names of 11 persons from the list pf destitute entitled for Old Age Pension. After receiving the above communication, the Jfilnpad Panchayat sent fund for payment of pension to 29 destitute withput clarifying the names of the; beneficiaries. After takmg oyer the charge of Sarpanch, Gram Paachayat, new Gram Panchayat resolved to prepare a Ust of destitute afresh and requested the Chief Bxecutive Officer accorduigly. From the documents available on record it is observed that the petitioner has addrcssed niiaierous communications to the higher olficers uickiding the Chief E^xecutive Ofiicer, Janpad Panchayat and District Panchayat seeking clarification in the matter of disbursement of pension as out of 40 destitute, Panchayat was receiving pension. for only 29 persons and on the basis of communication of ftie previous Panchayat, the names of 11 beneficiaries were not deleted from the list ofdestitute by the Janpad Panchayat. The eoimnunications addressed by fhe Gram Panchayat !Ui .1 ! 'i 1 l^ and the petitioner were not repli^ to by the Janpaci Panchayat/ Chief Executtve Of&cer and ofheri tiigher officers. % CqUector has observed the abcwe fajGt in tts order passed ui appeal. (:".:..':'. •.•:-[• The petitioner is directly elected Saipaiich of the Gram Panchayat, there is no charge agaiast him that he has embe^led the Panchayat fund or ma<fe ary defalcatfon. Non-payment of old a^ perisk)n cannot entirely be attribuited to the petitioner as to records ifc is clear that after fakir^ charge of tfae Sarpanch hfi sent various conununications fbr clariGcations in thisj regard and the saine remained uni^plied. It appears th|at some qiiestions were raised iii thej assembly that-two destttLtte and; old persons died because of non- paym.ent 6f old a^ pensk)n ahdl in this backgrc>und, compla^ against fhe petitioner was entertained and he was removed from fhe post of Sarpanch in exerci.se of pbwers under Sectk)n 40 of the Act, t993, though the order impugned also admit tihat deatli of fhe two destitute persons was not as a resiilt of non-payment of old age pension, as alleged. From the mipugn^ oixler ifc is eviderit^hat no proper enquiry was condiicted to estabUsh the chai^e againsf the petitioner, i However, consMenng ^ fhe State/resppndent that the petittoner participated ia fhe election held to flll up the vacancy of the post of Sarpanch, caused as a resiilt ofremoval of the •.^; petitkoier and k>st to one JaUat Kasbyap, who was elected Sarpazich of Gram Panchayat-Amora on 17.6.2008, no relief as claimed by the petitioner can be granted as by subsequent conduct, tfae petitioner has acquiesC;ed witli the order unpygned and participated m ttie electionunsuccessfuUy. / \ / In the result, fhe petition is dismissed since the petitioner has acquiesced wifh the impugned order and participated in the subsequent election held due to vacancy caused by his removal. No order as to costs. •Sd/-.:'.;.,,,: DWrendraMishra Judge