’S’mgia iaag& e‘F—@ @ IN THE E’EGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT ?ETI'1‘IO‘\§ NO. 4/172. OF 2004- BETE’E EN Madan mm Sahu s/o Rati Ram sahu, aged about 4O years, resident on”: Village Parsadkala Tahsil Rajim,éistrict Raipur (cs)m Sarganch of Gram Panchayat Parsada Kala. PETI‘TIONER AND The state 03E Chhattisgarh,through the Secretary Department of Panchayat, Mantralay, D.K.,s° Buildiing, Raipur (CGL, Director , P anchay at ,Chhattisgarh, Raipur, §dditional Collector, Gariyabanci, District Raipur (CG). Sub Divisional OEfiCC—r, Gariyabanc‘t, District Raipur (CG). Ram Kumar s/o Johan Dawangan . Dukhu Ram S/o Khemu Nishad . Mannu Lal s/o Santram Dewangan . Ram Prasad s/o Vishnu sa‘nu a Hukumat Ram Sahwsecretary (Panchayat Karmi) Gram Parsac‘xakal,Tehsil Rajim District Raipuru (Slcnm 4 to 9 all resident of Village Parsadakala Tehsil Rajim District Kai-gar (CG). Etehsildar Gariyaband.mstrict Raipur (CG). RESPONDENTS “L311 PETx‘l‘ION UNDER AR‘rggrrs 226g”? or Trig CONSTETUTICJN or mam "" i‘Ipw78 4 Shri Awadh Tripathj, counsel for the peu'iioncr. Shri Sanjay S. Agmv val, Government Advocate appeals for the respondent l\ os. 1 to 4 and 10 on advance copy. Heard on admlssmrl and M (W )P No 4268/2004 for grant of mtenm mhef § Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment passed by this Court in Smt. Rani Bai vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, mgned in 200213} MPHT 10 {CG}, has contended that, petiu'oner has: not been given opportunity of hearing, therefore, the Older passed by Sub-Divisional 0&er is ab initio void, and although the peu'tioner has challenged that order before Collector in appeal, the writ jurisdich'on can be inveked to correct the miscarriage ofjusu‘ce. Petitioner is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Paisadakala. He was served with a show cause notice dated 20—9- 2004 containing allegations against him regaxding piepamu'on of false muster roll and Financial iimgularin'es. In that notice, it was speciecany stated that petiu‘oiler is gumy of misconduct and therefore he was required to show cause whv he should not be removed hem his post He was gven the date of 29 9-2004 to submit his reply. 0n 29-9-2004 the peunoner did not nle any reply, then the matter was nxed for 7 10-2004 On that date also reply but filed an applicator: for the petmoner did not me Ins WWmay Q” 2 dQ 8mm m (mma) ewTi‘i'f $.TW “6a.": wwW Em Ef’éa‘ Wé‘m Wt??? WW”? ff 1w awK %n“ v‘au; Ww 16- 12-2004 XI-HC~—78 Ea mnm, WW W a W 2w W W (Kawa?) ?‘W m 317w Qq} KMO 42?; 4 MQviaE Zvm‘a’ Wm Em E'aiEs 32H aTrw m‘ T ‘ i i i %&if<ma¥r%¥r adjournment. That applicah'on O$cer menn‘oning reasons therefor and the case was hxed for 13— i 10-2004. 0n that date, final order was passed by Sub-Divisional petitioner is guilty of misconduct, t remain on the post of Sarpanch. Therefore, petitioner was removed nom the post of Sarpanch with additional direction that by preparing false muster roll, amount has been paid, therefore, recovexed mm the petin'oner. Additional Collector in accord ce with rule, and also med an application for staying the ordier passed by the Sub-Divisional 0mm. The Addin'onal Collector; O$oer, Whcxein it was held that and in public interest, he canno mjected by the Sub—Divisional after hearing, dismissed the stay application on the ground that allegation against pen‘tioner is regarding grave 1inancial irregulariu'es. been challenged in revision. The samC. It is pe1 linent to mention here that, this is not a case has not been aEorded to the where reasonable opportunity petitioner but this is a case where petitioner himself did not avail and tried to avoid the hearing. The appeal is pending before the competent authority for final disposal. e is distinguishabggyth that of L1“ , the opportunity anorded to him The facts of this c the case of Smt. Rani Bai 15npr$ nMNm J of the said amount should be tin'oner med an appeal before the The refusal of stay has revisional Court also rejected the XI»HC—~7B mmmm%r Wm 42%;?g mfwww mgw m m (Wm