^ IN THE HIGH CQtXRT OF aUDlCATURE AT BILASPUR CHHAl"ItSGARH W.P. NO.S^5 /2003 , PETIIaONER ...•••^•^s^rT . •• .€^I^--" t^^ <^ RESPONDEairTS TulsirajnMandavi, aged 27 years S/o. Brijlal, R/o. vill. Purramtola, Tah. Chtiuria, DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.) Sarpanch Gram Panehayat Purraintola Rajnadgaon (C.G.) VERSUS :1 The State of fchhattisgarh Through the Secretary Departruent of Panchyat, D.K.S.Buildmg Ra4pur(C.G.)^ 2. TKeAdditional GollectQr,i Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.Q.) 3. Sub DrvisionalOfEeer(Revpnue) Rajiiandgaon, Tahsil & Distt. RajnandgaonL (G. 4. CliiefExeGutiye Officer, Janpad Panch^yat RajnaEu|gajon TalisilgsDistt^riandgaonj^ WRITPB'FI'riON^NiDBRiARI'KBI-E 226/227 OF CONSTiEI'UTiEOlNOSiNDIA G.) a f;!lst ;!l~-..'l;:-:SiC''.4'^ \^y \.^- [m'UN N0.3433/20Q3 PETiTiONER Tulsiram iviandavi versus i<fcHi'oiMUfcNl_5 ^ ytate or cnnamsgarri an&otners Presenfc - Snri Anand Shukia, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the. I^.S.—A.-.-'.-^^w-.—l-.—AAF.-, -i A^ n oiaLe/re^ponaeni: E^O. s 10 o. None tor responctent No.4. .^39ns:, "rl rriis petition nas Deen Tiiea &y tne petinoner aggrievea DV oraer aatec 16/09/03 passed by the Additionai Coiiector, Rajnandgaon in Csse No.59- A/89/2002-2003 arising out of order dated 30/06/03 oassed bv the Sub-DivisionaS umcer. Kevenue, Kainanasaon wnereunaer me pemioner nas Deen rsmovec Trom tne o'rnce o? sarpancn and recover;/ nas aiso Deen orcierea. '2.. uner Tacss necessasy ror assposai o? me petmon ars ma? ine petmoner; wniie worKfng as sarpancn or uram Pancnayat, l^urramtoia, l ansH ana uismct- Kajnanagao", was proceeaea aga.nst in an enquiry Dytrse yuD-uivisionai (jtTicer. A snow cause nouce was issuea 10 tne petitioner, initiating proceedings unae- secnon 4U o? me r^ancnayati Kaj Aantniyam, iyya on me allegarions tnat in me inaser of construction reianng to pona, rorgea muster roiis were preparea. 'n response to the show cause notlce dated 10/03/03. the petitioner submittsd his repiv aenvinci aiieciasons. Vide oraer aatea BU/B/US (Annexure p/^:;, me tiu&- Divisionai Officer passed an order of removai of the Detitioner hoiding the pe'ationer guiity' or preparation or rorgea muster ro!!s. BV ora'er catea .il)/Ub7U3, me pstitioner nas Deen removeci from tne office OT Sarpanch and a recoveiv of Ks.y3/3.48 nas Deen oraerea. Aggnevea DV ine sa!Q oraer, tne petitioner preFen'ea an appeai Derore ms Coiiector wno nas a'so aismissea tne same, v'ide ;raeraatea 'iB/ua/03. ,i, Assaiiing ins correctness, vaiidiry ana reguianrv OT the procesdings of removai, iearnea counse' Torme Det'tioner nas maae two Told suDmisslons. 1 ne nrst suDmission of learnea counsei ror ine oet'tioner is thst the State uovernment nas issued cenain auiaeiines. •.jncier wnicn, Defore a notice unaer isection 4u !s issueQ ana Droceeaings ror removai are taKen, a Commlttee is required to be constltuted to enquire into the aiiegatlons and it is oniy when the saiQ t/ommittee recommenas acTion, tne yuD-L'ivisionai Ufficer coutci initiate sucn aroceeaings OT removai unaer aeccon 4U or me ACI. i ne otner suomiss'on of lesrnea counsei tor tne Detitioner Is that the petrtioner tnougn t-ias &een visitea wrtn arastie consequences in tns rorm of removai rrom tne omce or sarpancn, proper opportunitv OT neanng has not been arrorcfecf to nim ancf me suD-uivisiona! utTicer oerore passing tne orcer, aici not aiiow nim to aciauce evicience In nis cierence ana in re&uttal of incnminanng matenai coiiectea againsttne Detinoner. 4. i nougn, no repiy nas been n!ea oy respondent No.1 to 3, iearned 5tate counsei suDmittea tnat action aaainsi tne oetitioner has been taksn, strictlv in accoraance wiin t?ie Drovisions containea in iiection 4U OT tie Act. Me further submitted that the reauirement of iaw is that the Detitioner is to be afforded an opportunity or neanng ana to snow cause against tne proposed actlon which fas ceen auiy sompiiea wim. M!S turtner suDmission 's tnai: me oetrtioner is not entitled to any relief on the ground of violation of certain administrative guidelines Issued by the State Government, in the absence or there being any statutory prescnption estner in tne Act or any Kuies unaer tne Act imposing such fetter on exsrcise or povr'er Dy tne au.D-uivisionai unicer. Me suDmits tnst even if Defore issuance OT notice unaer iseciion 40 ot the Aot, the procedure contsrnplatsti unaer me uovernmenrs suiaesines nas not &een roltowed, the same wouid nof vitiate the action 'wnen tnere is a&unaant matenai on recora to show thst the peafoner was guiity OT preparation ot forged muster ro!!s and forged psyment made in the matter of certain construction works. He further submits that in so rar as aiiegations regaraing vioiation or pnncipies or naturai iusnce is concernect, •me oroer or me suD-Uivisionai umcer as weii as me ao'DeEiate authori"/ ciearlv ineicates tnat tne petrtioner was given proper sno'w cause norce and me aumoriry naa taKen a aecisson to remove tne petit.oner c-aseei on proof of a'iegations aaasnst tns petitioner ana tneretore, tne petitioner has been given due ana proper opponunity or neanng. &. in so far as first submission of tearned counsei for the petitioner is concerned, Ar.nexure 1^/3, wi-iicn nas Deen piacea on recora is an aaminiss'ative guiaeiine issuea m me titate uovernmem in tne aeDartmeni or "ancnayat ancs Rurai Deveiopment. Neither in the petition, there are any pieading nor the iearneci counsei ror me Detitioner cousa sansTv mss t/ourt tnat sucn guiceiines nsve Qeen issuea in exereise or any statutory power unaer tne i-'ancrtayati Kai Adhlniyam. 1993. [f that be so, this Court is not inciined to declare iiiegai, action OT removal oniy on me grouna tiiat Derore inrtiating proceeaings unaer section 4U or tne Act, tne ipternai aaniinistraiive measures contempiateci under the suiaelines were not aanerect to. 'fr S. tns provisions comained in section 4U or me Act or iay3 empovi'er tn© aumonty to initiate proceeaings ror removai, on aiiesations or misconaucs agains'; me Sarpaneh or a Uram l-'ancnayat. fne oniy statutory inniDrtion engranea under we iaw is mat no person snaii be removeci, uniess ne was given an opportunity to snow cause as to vi'ny ne shouia not be removea 'rom nis service. !t is psOt-in a'SDUie tnat tne Detitioner was issuea a snow cause notice. l ne oraer Dassea DV ine yu&-uivisional Officer states tnat a show cause notice was issuea to the petitioner on 10/3/U3 snd tne petitioner subminea nis repiy. ine oroer further snows tnat the Sut3-Divlssonal Officer nad recoraea tne statements OT tne inauin/ maae, tne auo- petjtioner and otner persons. On me basis or Divisiona! Ofi-icer came to the conctusion tnat tne Detitjoner is guiity CT preparation of forgect muster rolis and has misappropriatea an amount or Rs.83i'3.48. sn sne petiaon aiso, me pennoner nas not specincaiiy stated as to in 'A'hat manner, proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him. The order passed by the Sub-Dsvisionai Officer as weii as by the Collsstor / appeilate authonry was. mas me pemioner 'was arroraea an opportunity or neanng, statements were recoraea ana ine petinoner •n'as even siiowea 10 give nis vsrsion in writing. ! nererore, vers!on or me yuo-uivisionai umceF ana cie Co!lector that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petltioner, does no? aooear to De oen/erse. /. AS an upsnot of aiscussions as aDovs, tne petition nas no ment ana is iccoraingiy assmissea. Sd/- . Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge