ATTISGARH AT/BILASPUR 2003 f Smt Triveni Devi iW/o Rewa Ram Patel PETITIONER Aged about 45 years, anchayat ‘Darramuda’, Sarpanch, Gram P ‘Pussour’,Tahsil/DisttRaigarh (CG) Block- VERSUS REsgONDENTs ’f gk State Through of ‘. Chhattisgarh Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) g ".. . ‘gé‘?’ g§€§ :_ ' a? . s ./ Collector, District Raigarh Raigarh (co) Sub—Divisional Officer (Rev), Raigérh; District Raigarh (co) Murlidhar S/o Ramlal, Up—sarpanch, Gram Panchayat / Block-Pus'sour, Darramuda, Tahsil/Distt. Raigarh (CC?) ,7 ft! WRIT PETITION‘UNDER ARTICLE lzgxylgié OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF INDaI_A‘ S OF THE PETITIONER e cause title above. OF THE RESP ONDENTS ILART ICULARS liARTICULAR As given in th ' A§ given in the cause title above. 5 / f i A”? \ Shri KN. Nnnde, counsel for ih pei‘ifionar'. 5hri Sanjay 5. Agrawai, 6o er-nmenf Advocate for the Sfa‘l‘e/ respondaMs No.1 +0 3. Shri Sunil Ofwani, counse! for r spondenf No.4. By *his wri? petition under Ar-‘ric e 226/227 of fhe Consfifution of India, ‘ihe pefifioner has quesfioned fhe leg li‘iy, proprieiy and carrec'l'ness af fhe order dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure P-l) a$sed by fha prescribed aufhoriiy Sub Divisional Officer, Raigurh in case No.181/B-121/2001—02 whereby fhe pefi‘iioner was removed from 1'he pas? of Sarponch. The pefifioner has also questioned the appeilo're order da‘red 3. .2003 passed by the Coiiector. The pe'i'i‘rioner's pe'l'ifion is 1 she was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayaf: Darramuda,‘Block: Pussour, Disfrict: Raigarh. As some complaint was filed by ‘ihevillagers of Villages: Gudgahan and DarramUda against fhe petitioner, ac‘l’ion was 'l'aken by fhe Divisional Officer, Raigarh, and he directed the Chief Executive Officer igarh To conduct enquiry and submit the report. Thereafter, the Chief Exe utive Officer submitted his report and on that show cause notice was issued t the petitioner on which reply was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner file reply denying the allegations made in the complaint in which she had mentio d that’money was legally spent. The petitioner had also adduced evidence l support of her case. However, the S.D.O. held the petitioner guilty for th misconduct and passed the impugned order against which the petitioner filed appeal hefore theCollector, however, the same was dismissed. Ev n the petitioner had filed a revision h b , a h 1H 200 3 W mam Ema-mm Eta-{WWW WW %Wm 20.8.2004 XI-HC-22 mmmm \ WW 1 ¢Q§ _Z,V %31F'aqan%¥r' - againsf fhe order of the Collector bef—c re 1* e Revenue Board and during ‘rhe pendency of fhe revision she preferred this wri1' pefii’ion The grcund 1-aken in i‘h‘s pehhon for quashmenf of fhe m‘pugned orders Is ihaf no sufficient opporfunny for showmg cause 1'0 fhe p moner was gronfed and no charge of misconduct was proved against fhe pe‘hf ner. Therefore, If Is prayed +ha1’ fhe impugned orders be quashed. Return has been filed on behalf f respondents No.1 fo 3 in which fhey have denied fhe allegufians of The pefiti ner. g I have heard learned counsei for e parties. Learned counsel for fhe pefi'i'io er argued fhaf fhe impugned order suffers from illegalify for The reaso that The petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to cross-exam the witnesses. Therefore, the impugned order be quashed. On the other hand, learned Go t. Advocate appearing on behalf of V respondents No.1 to 3 argued that ag inst the order of the Collector, the petitioner had already preferred revi ion and during the pendency of the revision the petitioner was not entitled to file this instant writ petition. He further argued that the 5.D.O. passed t e impugned order after following the procedure envisaged under the Punc 1993 (for short ‘the Act'). As far as the; question of filing of revision against the order‘of the Collector is concerned. it is true that revision was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, which is e ident from the document Annexure P- 5 filed. by the petitioner. However, in hat order it has been mentioned that Raj Avam Gram Swarqi Adhiniyam, t i h XI-HC-22 anavr W m (. 200 ' i e pefifioner has raised in 1H pe‘ on The quasi-ion of ioiai'ion of principles of naiural Jusfice. Therefore, I f fhe conidered opion fha‘i' fhe objection raised by the learned c sel for’respondens No.1 To 3 i r femble. Now coming ‘a e ues propriefy of 'lhe nquir proviso fo Secfion 4O of Te Ac evisges o? no person shall be emoved unless he has been giv an pporfunify o sow c hy he should nof be removed from hi office". erusol of rder sheets f proceedings befo fe $.D.O. reveals fho‘l‘ offer receiving fhe ror'l' sho au nofice was issd ‘l’o ‘l’he pefifier \to which ‘l‘he pefifioner led rpl ‘l’her-ea‘l‘er 'lhe m‘lfer was fixed for- evidence of fhe efi‘l'ier, fhe pe‘rif er was alwed ‘ adduced evidence an i in supporf of er case 'rhe pefifion adduced fh evidence. Thereaffe, fhe L matt fixed for he evide f Panchayof and Social Ecational Organizafion and on 28.6.2002, the dence of the ranation was recorded, but that remained incomplete on ace unt of expiry of the Court's time and it was mentioned that the statement mained incomplete, therefore, the date was extended. Thereafter; for on or the other reason, the matter was adjourhed and that statement remai ed incomplete. However, on 18.10.2002 without completing the evidence an giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine that witness, the 0rd r was passed. Perusal of the proceedings m o.qaA 3 o u d he ivn th w o o jurisdidion 1'9 hear- +he revisin er- T Act Therefore, in fhe ge sifuaiion, e petitioner as forced file ihis writ pefiiin. Even ofher'wise fh 5 ri i v . o s in o n .t s no l th qfion of ey, h f na th r en o f h o e w s P o o e re h ep w cse ue on : fi ey f a pon i n lo 10 d h e e r 9” er was t n o du k e i Ogiz / \‘ to cross-examine fhe witness of Pancht and *hn‘r +oo wifhouf hearing fhe pari‘i orders passed by fhe 5.D.O. and fhe C Iecmr require 10 be quas'hed‘ In The’ result fhe peti‘rion is iiqwed and 1'he impugned order daied 18.102002 passed by 'Hne 5.D.O. and a pella're order dafed 3.2.2003 passed by fhe Coiiec‘ior, Rdigurh, are quashed.» Parfies are Ief'i‘ 1'0 bear fheiraow Certified copy as per rules. Iya‘r and Social Educa‘rionai Organizwrion . Therefore, on fhis ground only, fhe n cost [0%W XI—HC-zz 3am. my WW$ W m . .......00?‘1......... ............................................................................................. m mm in?m male?! mmmm a 4 x ‘ dafed 18.10.2002 does not even refleci' ‘rha‘r ‘rhe impugned order was passed af'l'er hearing lhe parfies. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion lhm the impugned order passed‘by the 5.0.0. suffers from vice of arbifrariness and violafion of principles of nal'urol ,jus'lice for 'l'he reason fhaf fhe pefifioner was nol‘ allowed