ADWAIT CH JENA Vs. KHANDAHATA GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 20.10.1990 passed by the Collector, puri in G.p. Appeal No. 1 of 1985 vide Annexure 9 dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the Sub divisional officer, puri.

(2.) THE case has a chequered career, in as much as this is the second writ application filed by the petitioner. The short facts which are necessary to appreciate the dispute are statedhereinbelow: The petitioner was appointed as Secretary of Khandahata Gram panchayat in the year 1980. It is averred that he was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly and to the best satisfaction of the authorities. Opposite party No. 4 was elected as the Sarpanch of khandahata Gram panchayat, (opposite party No. 1) in January 1984. It is stated that in order to encash the past rivalry, opposite party No. 4 started putting several obstacles on the way of the petitioner's lawful discharge of duties. The petitioner also became a target of the rage of opposite party No. 4 as he declined to carry out the illegal orders and unreasonable demands made by the said opposite party. While matter stood thus, on 25.10.1984 the petitioner fell ill and after obtaining leave proceeded to puri for treatment. Taking advantage of the petitioner's absence, without serving any notice upon him, opposite party No. 4 convened a meeting of the Gram panchayat on October 27, 1984 and became successful in passing a resolution resolving to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. It is alleged in the writ application that six members of the Gram panchayat objected to the resolution, but opposite party No. 4, being the Sarpanch, managed to get the resolution passed, on the basis of the alleged resolution dated October 20, 1984, five charges were framed and the petitioner was directed to show cause within 15 days as to why disciplinary action shall not be initiated against him. For the sake of brevity, the charges are quoted hereinbelow :

(3.) THE petitioner contends that the charge sheet being vague the same violates the proviso to Rule 216 (A) of the Orissa Gram panchayat Rules and the same is otherwise illegal. The petitioner also submits that charge Nos. 1, 3 and 5 being beyond the resolution dated 27.10.1984 should have been ignored. It is also contended that charge No. 2 besides being vague, is untenable, inasmuch as, there being no office building of the Gram Panchayat at the relevant time, all the registers of the Gram panchayat were in the custody of the sarpanch in consonance with Section 123 B of the Orissa Gram panchayat Act. It is further contended that charge No .4 being not specific as observed by the Sub divisional officer, and no notice having been issued regarding the said charge, the finding arrived at is otherwise illegal. On the basis of the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner contends that Annexure 1, the charge sheet is not sustainable in the eye of law, so also the order of termination.