‘ I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 227 No. 5059 of 2008 PETITIONER : Lalluram, S/o Munsiram, aged about 60 years, R/o Village Complainant Alikhuta, Gram Panchayat Ranitarai, District Rajnandgaon (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Department, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG). 2. Sub Divisional Offloer, Revenue, Gram Panchayat Ranitarai, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 3. Gulab Sahu, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Ranitarai, Vikaskhand, Rajnandgaon (CG). 4. Director Panchayat, DKS Bhavan Raipur (CG). 5. The Collector, District Rajnandgaon (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri Anand Shukla with Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State. Present : ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12thday of September, 2008) By this petition flled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge legality and validity of the order dated 05.05.2008 (Annexure P/4) passed by 4m respondent in case No. 79/ 89/06-07, further a direction to 151 and 2"d respondent not to allow 3r d respondent to work as Sarpaneh, Gram Panchayat, Ranitarai, District Rajnandgaon (CG). The indisputable facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is ex Panch of Gram Panchayat, Ranitarai, District Rainandgaon. On the basis of complaint made against 3rd respondent for misappropriation of the funds and financial irregularity committed by 3rd respondent. a sh‘ow cause notice was issued and inquiry was conducted. 2‘“ respondent. exercising , A t jurisdiction under the provisions of section 40 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993(for short ‘the Act, 1993), passed the order on 17.09.2007 (Annexuro P/Z) observing that the petitioner obtained funds of Rs. 12,375/— for the purpose of purchasing of tube lights from Aman Electrical and no tube lights were purchased, however, on complaint the purchasing was made and tube lights were accordingly set up at the required places, held that the action of 3rd respondent was not bonafide. Therefore, the 3 rd respondent was directed to be removed from the post of Sarpanch. In appeal, the Collector, Rajnandgaon, by order dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure P/3) affirmed the findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer (for short ‘SDO’) and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the order dated 17.09.2007 passed by the SDO. In revision, the Director, Panchayat, after having examined all the facts, vide his order dated 05.05.2008 (Annexure P/4) held as under: 6 .........newgmelatumum$WamWaW eummegdmaiirkrmm$mum$ wagwmmwsno EWWWaWW$ Enmm.wmmua¥%§aummww ahlagmamzéwuuWaanuuWW m_1993a$term4o(1)z$muznea€rarrsnésrurtha mewwmwanwwmmamémeq W$W§IWHeW§WW%WWaW W$WEIIWW&EhW-wawm$w deemmwwwmmwawmcel ummmahm4odwmt$MEuW emmmleuwemtwuwdmewml m4o(1)awmmuamqmfan$%éeeamr @mmueémelmafWHWaw—Tmmze Wajmmmmwmwweeieew W GrFiT art%m HR' d arq‘vh eeahfar obstinacy e 11m awaitgrteq’gm—astam'wewemamm? mwmwWlwWuaeww§imWa mmdwf$weaumahew€ewem uammfuemmm‘mammmmuatufe a‘emwealamutamn‘étmmm waf%¢am%mmuuama%adei§wf%|uw mferwwmmlmgaeiddmmm wee? Waltz! WHW it W met teeter 17.12.07 wmawmdem‘mwwgwwm WWWeqiweammmmwwuRmw mama We; 09.01.03WW1’rrmTel” U) Q Learned Director, Panchayat, after having considered the facts held that it was true that no advance payment was made for purchase of the electrical equipments and the payment was made subsequently. This cannot be held as serious financial irregularity or a case of embezzlement. The petitioner was not diligent but the action does not come within the purview of financial irregularity. Thus, the revision was allowed and the order removing the petitioner dated 17.12.2007 was quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that this is not a case of financial embezzlement. It is a case where there was some delay in making payment to the electrical equipments which was purchased from M/s Aman Electricals and thereafter installed, does not fall within the purview of grave financial irregularity. The contention of the petitioner that the Director, Panchayat ought not t0 have disturbed the findings recorded by the Courts below in its revisional jurisdiction does not merit acceptance. If there is a clear infirmity or irregularity in the orders passed by the SDO and the Additional Collector where they have held that the petitioner had committed financial embezzlement when it was a case of delay in making payment. The money Withdrawn for the purpose of installation of tube lights was utilized for the same purpose and there was some delay in making payment to M/s Aman Electricals. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below. except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is‘writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case.