W EEGH CIEJRT 0E? €H§iATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT ¥ETITION 1C} N0. 5338 of 2068 PE-TITIONER : Siya Ram Sahu Aged 44 years S/o Late Naresh Sahu, Up Saipach, Gram Fanchayat, Rapagulzg Block — Sarangarh, Distrkf Raigarh (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : '1. State of (Shhattisgarh, fhreagh the Secretzuy Department 0f It’anchayat & Rurai Development, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. The Celiector, Disirict Raigarh (CG) The Sub Diviskmai 0&Eeer (R) Sarangarh, Disti’ict Raigarh (CG) 4. Ranmath Sahu S/o Mahesh Ram Sahu Sarpanch (Suspeneed) Gram ‘ Panchayat Rapaguia, Block Sarangarh, Dis1i’ict Raigarh (CG) 53“'. WRIT PETXTEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hun’me 31m Satish K, Awouig. Present: Shri M.K.Bhaduri: Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondergs 1 to 3. GRAL ORBER {Passed on 24'“ day of Se tember? 2008) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure W4) passed by the Coilector, District Raigarh has filed this petition seeking quashing ofthe said impugnai order. 2. Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Up-Saipanch of Gram Panchayat Rapagula, Block Sarangarh, District Raigarhv On the basis of complaint (Annexure PH) made by the petitioner, the respondent No.3, in exercise of powers under section 39(l)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993, placed the respondent No. 4 under suspension Vide order dated 14082008 (Annexure 13/3). Against the said order; the respondent No. 4 prefetred an appeal before ,the Additional Coiieetor, Raigarh, on the ground that the order dated /r 1% 14.08.2008, passed by the respondent No. 3 was bad in law as the order was passed Without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward his case. The respondent No. 4 compiained of Violation of principles of natural justice. Further the order passed was ex parre. The Additional Collector, in revision, after having considered the case, came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 3 has passed the order on the basis of complaint Without making enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 4 to put forward his case. Accordingly, for want of compliance ofprinciples of natural justice and fair piay in action, the revision was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2008 (AnneXure P/4). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Ihave heard iearned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The order 02.09.2008 (Annexure PM) passed by the Additionai Collector is unexceptionable and does not warrant any interference. Conclusion ofthe Additional Collector that the order passed by the respondent No. 3, while suspending the respondent No. 4, visits with civil consequences. Compliance ofthe basic principles of natural justice as the financial irregularities alleged against the respondent No. 4 were not admitted in the facts of the case, is imperative. The Additional Collector has rightly held that no order visiting with civil consequences be passed without following the principles of natural justice. It is a case where the respondent No.4 has been prejudiced on 1 account ofthe fact that that the alleged financial irregularities have been found proved, leading to suspension of the respondent N0. 4 without affording any oppoxtunity of hearing to the respondent No. 4 to put forward his case. Thus, the impugned order dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure PM) passed by the A§ditiona1 Coiiec‘ior, is just and proper. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India shouid refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such eases where perversity: iilegaiity, irreguiarity or jurisdictional} error is Writ large on the face ofthe 10. record, which is not in the present case. In View of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the in limine. No order asto costs. petition is dismissed Consequently, LA No. 1, appiication for grant of aid-interim relief, also stands disposed of. ,i Sd/- B .Satish K. Agnihotri Judge