UDAYRAM KAIWERTH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has assailed correctness and validity of order dated 27-9-2007 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Revision Case No. 88/A-89 (15J/06-07, by which, order dated 12-2-2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Collector Bilaspur and order dated 7-11-2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the office of Sarpanch, have been affirmed.

(2.) The facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in the petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time, was holding the office of Sarpanch, after having been duly elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Malhar. On certain complaint alleging misconduct in discharge of duties and function as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, the Sub Divisional Officer directed enquiry to be made by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi against the petitioner as also against the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the Enquiry Committee was constituted, which included Tehsildar, Masturi, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, Sub Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, Vice President, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, Panch, Gram Panchayat, Malhar and Social Worker of Village Malhar. The Enquiry Committee noticed the complainants as also the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. A report was submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, vide his letter dated 25-9-2006 before the Sub Divisional Officer. Upon receipt of report, the Sub Divisional Officer registered a case against the petitioner and the Secretary and directed issuance of notice. On 10-10-2006, the petitioner appeared and submitted his reply. On 31-10-2006, order sheet recorded that final order could not be passed. Thereafter, on 7-11-2006, the Sub Divisional Officer passed final order under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short "the Adhiniyam of 1993") removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch and also directing recovery of Rs. 7,21,586/-.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 12-2-2007 (Annexure P-7J. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition before the Director, Panchayat. Vide order dated 1-3-2007, the Director, Panchayat passed an interim order. Thereafter, the Director passed another order on 14-3-2007, which was challenged in Writ Petition (C) No. 2114 of 2007. The writ petition was finally disposed off vide order dated 20-4-2007 (Annexure P-12) setting aside the order dated 14-3-2007 with a direction to afford proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, on petitioner's application dated 9-3-2007 as well as in appeal. Thereafter, the Director, Panchayat, i.e., the Revisional Authority passed the final order dismissing the revision, affirming the order passed by the Collector in appeal as also the order of removal passed by the Sub Divisional Officer.