SHISHIR KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Filing this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order of removal dated 6.8.2016 passed by the Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Odisha vide Annexure-7 thereby removing him from the post of Chairman, Khandapada Panchayat Samiti, Nayagarh on the premises that further continuance of the petitioner to hold public office like Chairman of Panchayat Samiti would impair the morale and erode the credibility of the Panchayati Raj Institutions and would be detrimental to the interest of the said Samiti.

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Khandapada Panchayat Samiti in the month of March, 2012 and while the petitioner was continuing as such, he was implicated in a criminal case under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide Vigilance P.S. Case No.25 under the allegation of possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.5,56,04,106.00 followed with the assets of the petitioner on 19.5.2016. It further comes out that basing on a letter from the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and a letter from the Collector in the said connection, the opposite parties issued the petitioner a show cause notice dated 21.6.2016 asking him to show cause as to why he shall not be removed from the Office of the Chairman, Khandapada Panchayat Samiti for being in possession of disproportionate assets and further being involved in a Vigilance P.S. Case. Petitioner in his response on 4.7.2016 requested the authorities to provide copy of the documents negotiating the allegations made against him in the matter of disproportionate assets while formally denying the allegations made in Annexure-1. Notwithstanding the request of the petitioner for supply of document to enable to him to a justified response, the Under Secretary to Government by its letter dated 15.7.2016 addressed to the Collector intimating therein that the personal hearing in the matter of the petitioner shall be held at the Secretariat Office of the Minister of Panchayati Raj on 27.2016 with a communication to the petitioner also to attend with relevant documents on the scheduled date, place and time. District Panchayat Officer also in the meantime asked the Block Development Officer to attend the Office of the Minister with the relevant documents on 27.2016 to participate in the personal hearing involving the proceeding against the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner also made a communication to the Minister requesting him therein for deferment of the proceeding intimating therein the noncooperation of the employer in the matter of supply of relevant documents to enable him to have an appropriate contest in the matter. It is alleged that in spite of petitioner's repeated request, there supply of documents to him and on the other hand, the proceeding was concluded against the petitioner without affording minimum natural justice. The petitioner was served with the order of removal dated 6.8.2016 on the premises of misappropriation of public funds, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) Challenging the order of removal vide Annexure-7, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the provisions contained in Sec. 40(A) and Sec. 52 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act contended that the petitioner being a public servant, a proceeding involving the issue through a full-fledged enquiry to conclude, that proceedings after the date of superannuation could continue, only when the charges should have been maintained. It is alleged that the procedure adopted by the opposite parties in the matter of removal of the petitioner not only remain contrary to the provisions contained in Sec. 40(A) and Sec. 52 of the Act but a procedure also unknown to law. It is thus, claimed that the order of removal being in the nature of capital punishment, no order of removal is permissible in absence of a full-fledged enquiry involving the specific charges set out, communicated and established. Referring to the decisions reported in the AIR 2003 SC 2041 and a decision as reported in 2006 (Supp.I) O.L.R. 939. Sri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court in the above reported case and the order of removal was therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law which is required to be interfered with and set aside.