•l.:!-. .-*1^ £NTHE_HlGH__£O^ILBJ;_OF^EmiCAIlTR£,CH_HATlISGABHAT BIIASPUK. / Fritram Saim S/o late Kartikram Sahu, Aged about 57 years, Sarpanch R/o Gram Panchayat Kopra Block- Fingeshwar, Tah - Rajim, Di^t : Raipur- (C.G.) Versis^ RtipQBfltBtl ^Y 1. State ofChliattisgarh Through Sec.re-t.aiy Paec.hayat & P.urai D eveiopment, D KS Bhawaii, Pvaipiir" Joiiit Director (Admimstr§tio!i) Panchayat and Soci! Sewices Raipiir- The Coilector Raipur"(C.G.) Tlie Sub Divisio'Ml OfficeL Gariyabaiid, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) '^ •i^ o* ^5. The ChiefExscutive Officer, Gram Panehayat, Kopra, Dist: Raipui"(C.CT.) 5- 6. Omkar Singh Thakiir, Upsarpssich, Gram Panchayat Kopra, Blocb Fingeshwar, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.,5 W E.IT PETITION ARTICLE @'F THE C ONSTITIT 110N_0_F_IND!A ^^ XI-HG—78 ~3-5^'^TraT^PT, ^ti1^|<6, [®l<rtl<-l^< < ...^.y...^;..^.fiA.).fi>.<-t. HW^\ ^^^••••••••.••••.•••-——•.^.-..-......^^^QQ W^?T TT5RT ( ^i^^) 3TI^T ^T t^lNr 1cT^fT ^37T^T s^^iich r"lii^^--..-'' ^TWT'Hf^T^^I •urdse preferr^d 21.12.2004 Shri Anup Mazumdai', counj^ Shri Szunesh Bajaj, Deputy | None present on behalf of x^ Retum 911 behalf of resp^: Rejouider on behalf of the petitioi3|< The petitioner has 226/227 of the Constitution coiTectaess and propriety of the Secretary, Paachayat & Riiral whereby the Secretar53r set aside P-8) passed by tlie Commissionerl Brief facts leading to filmg| year 2000 fhe petitioner was Kopra, Block Fingeshwai^ Disttic^ aUegmg misappiiopriation of Pon.{ petitioner by fhe Up-Sarpaach b| coxnplaia.t a prelxaxmaxy enquirp Social Education Cooixiiaator, Pirscribed Authority Le, Sub the proceedmgs under Section 1993 (heremafter referred to as <4< 17.10,2000 was given to the p^ petitioner vide his reply dated 3C[, cause noticedated 15,12.2000 tlie elected cr)i^t<rt<i)^ 'HR^ff ^f 'fe^t Tf^PF^R '^»'3TRm37T^T injsel for the petitioner. iGovemment Advocate for the State. ^spondent Nos.4 & 5. p^ndent No,l to 4 has been filed, »i3|erhas also been filed. this writ petition under Article ^t India questioniiig the legality, ^rder dated 1,3,2004 passed by the C|evelopment, Govt, of C.G., Raipiir order dated 10.7.2002 (Annexure Raipur. of this wnt petition are fhat in fhe as Sarpaach of Gram Panchayat Raipur, It appears tliat a complaint ^hayat fund was lodged against the Gram Panchayat Kopm. On that was conducted by Paiichayat & IfMigeshwat' aiid based ou that the OfEiccr, Gadyabaadli laitiated |0 of the Panchayat Raj Adhmiyam, [ct of 1993'} and a show cause dated stitioner, which was replied by the 10.2000. Thereafter, ^aia a show ^as served on fhe petitioner, which Divi^ioual I- 1 XI-HC—78 ~3'55T ^fFn^PT, yitH'y^Ko, fs«nt'H*4>< 'STT^T ^T f^TW 'n^TT 'STr^T'^RNT •^SM -^yiii^. ^-^s^^^ HW^l «»*1i<$» •^Ft 200 3n^TTra^F (y<f^<^T) IT^T^R ^ritH 3?l^l -z,-!- chl^f<rt<flt tHT^f -^ "fe^ TRT^R ^stRww^T was also replied by the petiti^ner ou 22.12.2000. Thereafter, on 27.9.2001 leamed S.D.O. vide| rcinoval of fhe petitioner j5:oia Panchayat, agaiast which the Annexure P-5 passed the onler of ^he post of Sarpaach of said Grajxi petitioner ha^ prefexred aa appeal under Riile 3 of C,G, Paucha^at (Appeal & Revision) Rule, 1995 (heremafter referred to as 'Rules | and fhat appeal was came to be dated 3.1.2002 (Annexure P-7)| ^>f 1995') before the CoUector, Raipiir ^lismissed by the Collector vide order [ Aggrieved fherewith the petitioner preferred a revision uuder Rt^le 5 of Riiles of 1995 before the CoBixnissioner, Raipur, who aft^r hearing the parties in the niatter passed a detaUed order dated 10J.7.2002 (Annexurc P-8), set aside the orders passed by the Prescribed| Authority & the Appellate Authorit5r |to the Prescribed Aufhorily wifh a enquiry ia accordaace wifh fhe Paiichayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. ^ti being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner p:teferred a secoud revision before the Secretaiy, Paachayat & Rural pevelopment, Govt ofC,G,, Raipur, who passed fhe iinpugned order) and rema.nded back the case direction to conduct a freshl pix?visions of Section 40(1) of th^ It seems that Up-Sarpari^ Perusal of Rule 5 of the Govemment, the Cominissione party, at aiiy time for the prirpo^ legality or propriety of any orde| fhe procccdiag of fhe autihLOiit^ dated 1.3.2004. Rules of 1995 reveals fhat the State r, fhe Director of Panchayat the CoUector may on its/his own x(iotion or on the application by aay e ofsatisfying itself/himselfasto the : passed by or as to fhe regularity of suboixliaate to it/him. caU for aiid 1 /^ 9 'S^Ef '<!l<4i(vl<4, '^ftTFR', I®ldl'y^< ^t 200 ^^y 'q^%> (^t^i^) ^^ ^r R^i^ TOT^l^iWlN? ¥^tiW^ ^^RT^T ^j examine the rccord of any case such authorily aiid may pass sucj CM^i^s4t<l 1RTTI^f^ k^i Xf^^R ^* 3?RfH 3?I^T pendiag before, or dlsposed of by, h order m reference thereto as it/he may fhiak fit- In view of the above provijsions, fhe revisiou was permissible before the Sta.te Govcmixieut, PaB^chavat aad the Collector, In |he Coniniissioner^ the Director of Ithe present case the Commlssioner had already exercised fhe revisioj|ial powers, Uierefore, iii my opmioii no second revision was perm.isSii^le before the Secretmy< Therefore, ouly on fhis couut alone fhe imp Eveu otherwise the oixler pas Ligned order is Mable to be set aside. sed by the Comxai^sioner dated 10,7.2002 is aa elaborate orde^ m which it has been specifically meutioued that leanied S.D.0. pfessed the order uiider Section 40 of the Act of 1993 without condi^cting enquiry as envisaged under Section 40(1) of fhe Act of 199^ without giving fair opportunity of heaiing to the petitioiier aad m. justice, As per findmg of leai|aed Commissiouer, statements of witaesses were not recorded m Conmiissioner held that siacej Iviolation of fh.e principle of natural accoidance wifh law aad even the petitioner was not allowed to ajdduce evideuce. Thercforc, learaed enquuy was uot conducted ui accoixlaace with Section 40(1) ofplie Act of 1993, thc order passed by the S.D.O. & the AppeUate Auth^rity were set aslde and matter was remaiided back to the Pi-escri|bed Aufhority for conducting the enquiry afresh ia accordaa.ee witpi provisions of Section 40 of Act of 1993. Gt.PRJ—FS/7fi-5/200( -50,000. •S-^ «4|^M^, ^xily^i^, [®l<rit<i-i!j,< w»mrwwes "m^ 200 aqi^T 'f^v (i?^^) ^^i^i'^N' ^JT ^lt^T ^RW ll-s'^^-4^ p»5! r" (fc^W'- 1'^W^ft^ ^T^T Fiirther clause (b) of Rule revision by aay porty shall ouly 1) 5aw aad not on facts^ In the iinpugaed order lea^ Conmussioner's order wifhout ^l^ta^ ^H^ff "^ fest <FSI^K ^^S^H31?^T 5 eavisages that 'aii appUcation for ^e entertamed if it is on the pomt of L-ned Secretaiy has not poiated out aiiy legal flaw in the order passe<|l by the Coninii^^ioncr, Evcn it has not been menuoned that what wjas the iUegality m the order passed by the Commissioner. Leasjned Secretan7 set aside the assigniag any reason whatsoever Accordiagly, on this count also fS^e impugned order is Uable to be set aside In the result the petition |of the petitioner is allowed and the impugned oi-der dated 1.3.2004 ^assed by fhe Secretanr, Panchayat & Rural Developnient, Govt- of C1,G,, Raipur, is hereby set aside aud that of the order of Coixumssione^ Raipur dated 10.7,2002 (Annexure P-8) is iiestot^ed. With the aforcsaid obserl/ation aad direction, the petitiou stands disposed of. ConsequenUy, M.W.P. No.7]^6/04 also stands disposed of Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge QF.PRJ—FS/7B-J9/200( -50,000. >;.os ^ ^•^' ^\