JOGENDRA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders vide Annexure-4 a resolution dtd. 20.01.1998 thereby adopting the decision of the Satyabhamapur Gram Panchayat terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Secretary and the order under Annexure-5 an order of the District Panchayat Officer approving the proposal No. 5 in the above regard passed under Annexure-4. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected for the post of Secretary in a duly constituted selection process and was issued with the appointment order for being appointed as the Secretary of the Satyabhamapur, Gram Panchayat vide Annexure-1. He joined the said post by submitting his joining report on 25.05.1994 as appearing at Annexure-1(A). The further case of the petitioner is that while he was continuing as such, he was served with a communication suspending him from the post of Secretary in exercise of power U/s. 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short 'Act'). Following his suspension, a representation was submitted at the instance of the Ward Members of the Gram Panchayat on 15.12.1997 to the Deputy Collector, Bhubaneswar alleging the disorderly behavior of the petitioner-Secretary. Consequent upon receipt of the above complaint, opposite party No. 3 vide his letter No. 285 dtd. 25.12.1997 asked the petitioner to show cause. In response to the notice to the said show cause, the petitioner submitted his reply on 29.12.1997 refuting the allegations made against him. The reply of the petitioner is appearing at Annexure-3(A). The petitioner further alleged that on the date of his submission of reply, he was forced by the opposite party No. 3 to handover the Minutes Book of the Indira Abas Yojana. While the matter stood thus, a proposal was adopted on 29.01.1998 by the Gram Panchayat deciding removal of the petitioner. Upon receipt of the adoption of the proposal for removal of the petitioner from the post of Secretary under Annexure-4, the District Panchayat Officer approved the decision of the Gram Panchayat terminating the petitioner from his services. In assailing the orders under Annexure 4 & 5 the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are in violation of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 216(a) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules, as, he has not been provided with reasonable opportunity before passing the impugned order vide Annexure-5. Thereby, there is violation of the statutory provision which is mandatory.

(2.) To substantiate his above submissions, the petitioner also relied on three (3) decisions of this Court as follows:

(3.) Shri Das appearing for the State, while admitting that there is no counter affidavit at the instance of the opposite parties, supported the decision of the Government in the impugned order on the ground that there is no violation of any statutory provision in passing the impugned order vide Annexure-5. He further submitted that the impugned order is justified as the Gram Panchayat is empowered to adopt such resolutions and the resolution terminating the services of the petitioner is a valid one.