SANJAY KUMAR CHANDRAKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dtd. 8/4/2022 passed in WPC No. 1730/2022 by which learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant herein against the order dtd. 9/3/2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) -cum- Prescribed Authority, Saja removing petitioner/appellant from the post of Sarpanch under Sec. 40 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (henceforth 'the Adhiniyam, 1993').

(2.) Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner/appellant would submit that appellant was duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Agri, District Bemetara (CG). Pursuant to complaint made by one Bhubneshwar Chandrakar alleging irregularities against appellant, an enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 4 through three Members' Committee and based on enquiry report, show-cause notice dtd. 1/1/2022 was issued to appellant to explain as to why he should not be removed from the post of Sarpanch under Sec. 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Appellant submitted reply to show-cause notice denying allegations levelled against him. Respondent No. 3 without issuing charge sheet to appellant, as provided under Sec. 39 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, and without conducting enquiry, as contemplated under Sec. 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, passed an order on 9/3/2022 removing petitioner/appellant from the post of Sarpanch under Sec. 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The order dtd. 9/3/2022 was put to challenge by petitioner/appellant before the Additional Collector, Bemetara by preferring an appeal under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. Subsequently, on account of threats given by Members of Gram Panchayat, the petitioner/appellant has withdrawn appeal on 29/3/2022. During pendency of appeal before the Additional Collector, petitioner/appellant has also preferred writ petition bearing WPC No. 1516/2022 before the High Court and on objection being raised by Caveator therein, the same was also withdrawn by petitioner/appellant with liberty to file afresh as and when any occasion arises. After withdrawal of appeal, petitioner/appellant filed WPC No. 1730/2022 challenging the order of removal dtd. 9/3/2022 inter alia on the grounds that respondent No. 3-SDO -cum- Prescribed Authority passed the order impugned without issuing charge sheet to petitioner/appellant and without complying with provisions of Sec. 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. She contended that no enquiry was conducted to prove allegations levelled against petitioner/appellant by SDO; no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or to produce evidence in defence was granted and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner has raised both the aforementioned grounds in writ petition filed by him, but learned Single Judge while considering pleadings and submissions, only considered that, allegation against petitioner/appellant is of violating provisions of Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 (for short 'the Rules of 2015'), which prohibits quarrying operation without prospective license or quarry permit. She contended that there was no allegation in complaint made by complainant or in show-cause notice issued by authority concerned to the petitioner/appellant that petitioner/appellant violated any of the provisions of the Rules of 2015. She also contended that even if the allegation that red soil (murrum) extracted during deepening work of existing village pond namely 'chhota talab', which was done under MANREGA scheme as per orders of the Panchayat officials, was used by petitioner/appellant in filling potholes of village road, it cannot be said that petitioner/appellant has undertaken quarrying operation. She further submits that deepening of village pond under the scheme of Government would not come within the purview of quarry operations and therefore provisions of the Rules of 2015 will not be attracted in present case. Hence, the reason assigned by learned Single Judge in the order impugned for dismissing writ petition being beyond the allegation in the show-cause notice, the same cannot be sustained, she contends.

(3.) Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State opposes submissions of learned Senior Counsel for petitioner/appellant and submits that on receipt of complaint containing as many as 12 allegations against appellant, which includes use of red soil (murrum) extracted during deepening of village pond by him for his personal interest, the authority concerned constituted a Committee to enquire into allegations made in complaint. The Committee found the allegation that red soil (murrum) extracted during deepening of village pond was used by appellant for his personal interest without there being any approval from gram panchayat or gram sabha to be true. He submits that submission of learned Senior Counsel that specific charge sheet has not been issued to petitioner is not correct in view of contents of show-cause notice dtd. 1/1/2022 (Annexure P-7 to writ petition) which clearly indicate the charge levelled against the petitioner. He also submits that as per documents available on record and finding recorded by the Enquiry Committee, red soil (murrum) extracted was utilized by petitioner without having any permission in that regard. This apart, after service of notice, petitioner/appellant himself appeared before respondent No. 3 and admitted his guilt. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for conducting further enquiry as envisaged under Sec. 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 because charge levelled against petitioner was not denied by him. He also submits that even before this Court the petitioner/appellant has not produced any license or permit for undertaking quarry operation by him. Hence, there is no substance in this writ appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. He also pointed out that order impugned in writ petition is an appealable order and once appellant has filed appeal, he ought to have prosecuted appeal on merits, but only to approach this Court by filing writ petition, appeal has been withdrawn by petitioner/appellant. For this reason also, the petitioner/appellant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.