DINABANDHU SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the order of the District Panchayat Officer, Cuttack removing him from the post of Secretary, Tulasipur Gram Panchayat conveyed through letter dated 13.2.1996 of the Sarpanch under Annexure -6/A claiming the said action to be arbitrary and illegal.

(2.) TO draw it mild, the case of the petitioner is, by resolution of the Tulasipur Gram Panchayat in its general body meeting on 16.5.1995, he was appointed as Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat on a monthly salary of Rs. 500/ -. Pursuant to such appointment he joined the post. The Sarpanch by his letter dated 22.5.1995 directed Incharge -Secretary, G. P. Panda to hand over detailed charge to the petitioner by 25.5.1995. While, the petitioner was holding the said post, the Sarpanch under Annexure -4 invited applications for filling up the post of Secretary. Since the Gram Panchayat took a decision to appoint another Secretary and that too when the petitioner was still working as the Secretary, the petitioner moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 4197/95 for quashing the said notice and for a direction not to remove him from the post without following procedure under Rule 216 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Rules, 1968. This Court by order dated 11.1.1996 held that the impugned notice (Annexure -4) which was pursuant to the order of the S.D.O., Banki annulling the resolution dated 16.5.1995 of the Gram Panchayat appointing the petitioner to the post of Secretary, was illegal. The same was quashed. The present grievance of the petitioner is that the letter of the Sarpanch dated 13.2.1996 under Annexure -6/A is pursuant to the order of the District Panchayat Officer removing him from the post without any enquiry and without giving him any opportunity to meet the charges.

(3.) HEARD Mr. K. B. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Prusty, learned counsel for the State. So far as the point of maintainability of the writ petition before this Court is concerned, we express no opinion on the same and leave the point open for decision in other cases because, since the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy against his removal since the time when he challenged Gram Panchayat's appointment of another Secretary to the post by filling O.J C. No. 4197/95 disposed of on 11.1.1996 in his favour, it will not be proper to drive the petitioner after that length of time to again pursue the remedy before the Administrative Tribunal. Secondly, the case before the Supreme Court was one under Karnataka Village Boards Act. The learned counsel for the State has not pointed out as to how the decision of the Apex Court in the facts and circumstances, is applicable to the present case.