MANJEET RAM KEWAT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was an elected Sarpanch has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 12-6-2006 passed by the Upper Collector, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) in Revision No. 29/A/89 (A) year 2005-2006. By the aforesaid order, the Upper Collector has directed for removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch exercising jurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the M.P. (C.G.) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE brief facts, as stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khapridih, Tehsil Kasdol, Distt. Raipur. On some complaint being lodged by respondent Nos. 4 to 7, a proceeding under Section 40 of the said Act was initiated against the petitioner and he was issued a show-cause notice. It is stated that reply to the said show-cause notice was filed by the petitioner and the matter was pending for disposal before the Prescribed Authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur. When this matter came up for hearing on 31-1-2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer, all of a sudden, dismissed the aforesaid Case No. 17/A/89 (A) year 2005-2006, on the ground that more than 90 days' time has elapsed from the date of issuance of show-cause notice, therefore, the said proceedings cannot be continued. However, it was also observed that after receiving a detailed enquiry report further action under Section 40 may be initiated against the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 preferred a revision before the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector in the aforesaid revision passed the impugned order on 12-6-2006 giving a finding against the petitioner that he was guilty of misconduct and also directing that he should be removed under Section 40 (1) of the aforesaid Act. It is against this order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the capacity of Prescribed Authority was an appealable order and the Collector was not justified in entertaining the revision against the said order. In the alternative, his submission is that even if there is no jurisdictional error in entertaining a revision, the Collector was not entitled to pass an order of removal of the petitioner after recording a finding in relation to the alleged misconduct and at the most, he should have remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for its disposal in accordance with law.