INDIRA SURMANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the cause title. 'Gram Panchayat Ukhra' be mentioned before the name of Sarpanch, and Collector, Mahasamund be joined as respondent No. 5. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. The petitioner was removed from the post of Secretary (Panchayat Karmi) by the Gram Panchayat. She preferred a petition before the Collector, Mahasamund that was registered as Case No. 133/2000-2001: On 22-9-2001 the Collector passed an interim order (Annexure P-8) and stayed the operation of the order of removal dated 15-6-2001 (para 3 of the order). The said stay order was communicated on 25-9-2001 by the Deputy Collector, Mahasamund vide Annexure P-9. The respondent No. 4 Gram Panchayat Ukhra preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Raipur Division. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 15-10-2001 (Annexure P-1) has set-aside the order dated 25-9-2001, which is a communication made by the Deputy Collector regarding stay order dated 22-9-2001 passed by the Collector.

(2.) It appears that the Commissioner has been under the impression as if the order dated 25-9-2001 (Annexure P-9) has been passed by the Collector. It is not the order dated 25-9-2001, but in fact it is the order dated 22-9-2001, which has been passed and signed by the Collector. The Gram Panchayat filed the revision against the order dated 25-9-2001. Substantive order is dated 22-9-2001 which was not assailed by the Gram Panchayat therefore the Commissioner has considered the validity and propriety of the order dated 25-9-2001, which is more or less a communication and clearly stipulates the order of stay, is dated 22-9-2001. The Commissioner totally under misapprehension has finally decided the revision. Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 provides remedy of Revision, which is quoted herein below :--

(3.) The principles of natural justice as well as proviso to Rule 5 clearly stipulates that the authority hearing revision shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them for being heard. This requirement has to be complied with before passing any final order.