VIRENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner wants to impugn and challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 26.08.2006 passed by the Collector, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) (Annexure P/6) dismissing the petitioner's appeal/representation against the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by respondent No. 3 removing the petitioner from the post of Patwari. Facts, in nutshell, necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to Section to Section 104 of the M.P./C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'the Code'), submitted that the Collector is appointing authority of the petitioner, and therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority in law to pass the impugned order. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the capacity of Disciplinary authority is per se without jurisdiction and ab-initio void. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Devi Dayal Jha Vs. State of M.P. & ors, 2013 ILR(MP) 363.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel appearing for the State, while inviting attention of this Court to M.P. Bhu Abhilekh Niyamavali, part-I, clause-8, would submit: the powers of appointment, removal and dismissal of Patwari have been delegated by the State Government to the S.D.O., and therefore, action has been taken against the petitioner by the competent authority, which does not call for any interference.