PANKAJ SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) ON petitioner's complaint, proceedings under Section 41A of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1960 was initiated against respondent No. 5, the President of Municipal Council, Mahasamund. At the end of enquiry, the competent authority found that the first charge; regarding engagement of excess number of Tractors without seeking approval of the Municipal/president in council has not been proved against respondent No. 5 because for the said charge the concerned Chief Municipal Officer has already been punished. With respect to the second charge; also, it was mentioned that the issue of splitting of minor works each of Rs. 1 Lakh has been done by the concerned Chief Municipal Officer and not by the President. In so far as the third charge; is concerned, the President was found guilty of consuming more quantity of diesel than the prescribed limit of 80liters per month, however, the competent authority found that the said charge is not of serious nature which would call for removal of the elected president from the office. In Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and others : (2001) 6 SCC 260 the Supreme Court has held thus: -

(3.) IN the case in hand, the competent authority has already concluded that the third charge against the President, Municipal Council, Mahasamund was not of serious nature. Consuming more fuel per month than the prescribed limit does not in -effect amount to a financial irregularity or dereliction of duty of such a nature warranting removal of an elected person. It is not the allegation that the President withdrew the amount without, in fact, consuming the diesel but the allegation is of consuming more than the prescribed limit. Thus, the element of misappropriation or embezzlement is missing.