Bffii ISg^ ss !^?lfIII! III w (Sinqle Bench; 1-lon'ble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra') W.P.(C)No.5601/2009 (Petition U/A 227 of the Constitution of India) PETITIONER Bhikam Yadav, S/o Shri Jeevrakhan, Aged Revisioner about 55 years, R/o Village Chunkatta, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, C.6. Vs RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural bevelopment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur C.G. 2. Deputy birector, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, t)istpict Durg C.6. 3. Additional Collector, Durg, [>istrict Durg, C.6. . . • 4. Sub t)ivisional Officer, Patan, District Qurg, C.6. Present: Mr. Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Oral Order (25.09.2009) 1. Meard. 2. The petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of .the Constitution of India has impugned the order passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been removed from the postof Sarpanch of 6ram Panchayat Chunkatta, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, which has been subsequently confirmed in the appeal by the respondent No.3. The revision preferred by the petitioner has been further dismissed by the Director, Panchayat of the State, vide impugned order of Annexure P-1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4-Sub Civisional Officer, removed the petitioner after holding enquiry under Section 40 of the Panchayat Rcy-Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Aet') only on the basis of evidence of Shri J.L. Chandrakar, Sub-Auditor, who conducted enquiry along with oneShri R.&. Dhruv, Sub-Auditor against the petjtioner ancl submitted the report. Finding of respondent No.4 is based on the improper appreciation of evidence of the said Shri J.L. Chandrakar- as from his . - ^.. ^^ca^^S^^lg^j; 118;' IB: Bil :8B! irlSi' iy!K jjjjgj. #MW ,/' evidence it would be evident that the petitioner was not afforded sufficienT opportunity at thetime of condueting enquiry. 4. From perusal of the order of Annexyre P-5 of the respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority, it appears that after obtaining enquiry report from the Sub-Auditor, the petitioner was served with a showcause notice under Section 40 of theAct. Thereafter, said Shri J.L. Chandrakar, Sub Auditor, was examined as a witness and the petitionep was afforded opportunity to cross-examine the abpve witness. Thus, respondent No.4 after considering the evidence of said Shri J.L. Chandrakar and also other documents available on record including the proceedings of Panchayat has held that all the three charges leveled against the petitioner stand proved. Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been further dismissed by the Collector vide order of Annexure P-6. 5. The Collector after going through the record arrived at aconclusion that the respondent No.4 has examined each charge leveled against the petitioner from the record and thereafter reached to the conclusion that all The three charges leveled against the petitionerstands proved. Charge regarding interpolation inthe proceedings book of the Gram Panchdyat wherebytheresolutiongrantin9leasefor limestoneto one Kamal Agarwal is Shownto be passed though the resolution was never placed before the Sram Panchayat. Qrder passed by the Collector has been subsequently confirmed by the Director, Panchayat, who has rejected the revision petition of the petitioner. 6. After carefully examining the orders passed by the three forums below, who have recordecl concurrent finding of fact that all the three charges leveled against the petitioner stand proved, I am of theopinion that there is no ground avdilable to the petitioner to impugn the aforesaid orders. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 8. Consequently, I.A. No.l alsostands dismissed, ^- --'°u^r'