AGNELO ALEXINHO LOBO Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was duly elected as a member of the Socorro Village Panchayat in the elections held on 12-1-1997 and, thereafter, on 14-2-1997 was elected as Sarpanch. Earlier also, the petitioner had held the post of Sarpanch. On 7-9-1998, respondent No. 1 served on the petitioner a show cause Notice under section 50 (4) and 50 (5) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat Raj Act ). On 16-12-1998, the petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice contesting the charges and allegations made therein. The matter proceeded before the 1st respondent. On 16-2-1999, after hearing parties the 1st respondent directed the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No. 3 herein to file written arguments on 3-3-1999. On 3-3-1999, the complainant/respondent No. 3 filed written arguments. On that date, on behalf of the petitioner an application was filed seeking time to file written arguments. Time was granted and the matter was adjourned to 7-4-1999 for judgment and order. After the matter was reserved for judgment, the petitioner filed three applications. The first application was dated 15-3-1999. By the said application, the petitioner sought an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent No. 3 through his lawyer and also to permit the petitioner to lead evidence through witnesses. The second application by the petitioner contained a prayer that the respondent No. 1 should recluse himself from the matter as the petitioner apprehended reasonable likelihood or possibility of bias. The third application dated 17-3-1999 was that the matter should be adjourned till such time as the two afore mentioned applications were heard and disposed of. By order dated 4th May 1999, the 1st respondent disposed of all the applications and rejected the reliefs prayed for. While considering the case of the petitioner for cross-examination of the respondent, the 1st respondent held that the orders under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 50 would be passed, based on the documentary evidence and after considering the reply and written submissions and in these circumstances there was no need for cross-examination of the respondent No. 3. Insofar as the application that the respondent No. 1 should recluse himself, the 1st respondent held that the petitioner had not disclosed any material which must necessitate the respondent No. 1 reclusing himself. The 1st respondent noted the various steps in the proceedings and the fact that it was only after time was fixed for filing written arguments that the application was moved. In these circumstances, the said application was also rejected.

(2.) THE 1st respondent thereafter proceeded with the proceedings and by order dated 14th June, 1999 directed the removal of the petitioner from the Office of Sarpanch as well as the membership of the village Panchayat of Socorro from the date of receipt of the order with the directions that the petitioner would not be eligible for re-election as Sarpanch or as a member of the Panchayat for a period of five years from the date of issue of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. On 29th October, 1999, this Court was pleased to issue Rule. On January 14, 2000 the Court held that the petitioner should be allowed to continue as a member of the village Panchayat till the final decision in the petition. However, considering the various allegations against the petitioner which are referred to in the impugned order and the proceedings therein, his rights as a member of the Panchayat were restricted to the extent that the petitioner during the pendency of the petition was not allowed to represent the Panchayat in any proceedings or to issue any letter or certificate on behalf of the Panchayat or to vote at any of the meetings of the Panchayat till further orders. The impugned order of respondent No. 1 to that extent was stayed. An appeal came to be preferred against the said order. The same came to be dismissed by order of this Court dated 13th June, 2000.

(3.) AT the outset it may not be necessary to go into the contents of the show cause notice, the reply thereto and the findings recorded by the 1st respondent. This is because the challenge to the action of the 1st respondent is mainly based on violation of the provisions of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) of section 50 of the Panchayat Raj Act and the principles of natural justice. The principal grounds of challenge as raised by the petitioner are that the show cause notice clearly disclosed that the Director of Panchayat had foreclosed his mind even before hearing the petitioner. Though opportunity to show cause has been given, the 1st respondent has pre-decided the issue by holding in the show cause notice itself that the alleged acts of irregularities/illegalities had been proved and, as such, the purported opportunity given was sham and, consequently, the order dated 14th June, 1999 was illegal, null and void. The next submission is that a perusal of the show cause notice would indicate that the opportunity given to the petitioner was only to show cause why he should not be removed from the Office of the Sarpanch as well as from the membership of the village Panchayat. No opportunity at all, reasonable or otherwise, was given to the petitioner to show the acts of irregularities/illegalities as alleged against him, should not be held as proved. The next submission is that the show cause notice purported to give opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from the Office of Sarpanch as well as from membership of the village Panchayat. It is submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner particularly or at any stage as to why he is to be debarred and/or made ineligible for election as Sarpanch or a as a member of the Village Panchayat of Socorro for a period of five years. It is also submitted that the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the charges against the petitioner are based on the information furnished by the petitioner during the inspection carried out by the Director of Village Panchayat at random of the records of the village Panchayat. Neither the inspection report, if any, nor statements of the inspection have been disclosed to the petitioner at any stage nor referred to in the show cause notice, although they appear to be relied upon in passing of the impugned order in breach of the principles of natural justice and as such the impugned order is illegal, null and void.