SURESH CHANDRA DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as the Secretary of Bira Balabhadrapur Grama Panchayat. By a letter dated 11.10.1999, he was asked to show cause within seven days as to why disciplinary action will not be taken against him for misbehaving with the Sarapanch and the members of the Gram Panchayat. In the show cause notice, it was also alleged that the Gram Panchayat Office was not functioning properly, records of the Gram Panchayat Office are not available in the office and members were not informed with regard to the receipt of the grant -in -aid and non -availability of cash book for approval of income and expenditure. On 16.10.1999, the petitioner prayed for time to submit his show cause. On 25.10.1999, the Sarapanch of the Grama Panchayat passed an order dismissing the petitioner from the service. On 30.10.1999, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, i.e., O.G.P. Appeal No. 40 of 1999, against the said order of dismissal dated 25.10.1999, the Sub -Collector, Puri by his order dated 4.1.2000 held :

(2.) MR . K. B. Kar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure as laid down in Rule 216 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Rules, 1968 (in short, "the Rules") has not been followed while removing the petitioner from service inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. Mr. D. K. Nanda, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the decision of the Grama Panchayat taken on 25.1.2000 to dismiss the petitioner and instead of availing the Statutory remedy by way of appeal under Section 133 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of removal. Despite notice, no one has appeared on behalf of Opp. parties 5 and 6.

(3.) THE petitioner's only grievance in this writ petition is that he has not been given an opportunity of hearing by the Grama Panchayat although the provisions in Rule 216 of the Rules provides for such an opportunity to be given to him before any order of removal is passed. This contention can be decided by this Court on a bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 216 of the Rules and for this reason, we are not inclined to dismiss this writ petition at this stage after the writ petition has been pending before this Court for long two years only on the ground that an alternative remedy by way of appeal is available against the impugned order of removal. Rule 216(a) of the Rules is extracted hereunder :