SUNITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner by this writ application has challenged the order of the State Government in terms of Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act by which the petitioner, who is the Mukhiya, has been removed.

(3.) Having perused the impugned order, I am satisfied that it cannot be sustained. Though, the impugned order runs into over four pages with four specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to irregularity in selection for appointment of Anganwari Sewika and Sahaika, the order notes the charges, it then notes the defence of the petitioner, it then notes the comments by the Collector and thereafter in one short para it notes that in view of criticism made by the Collector and the Department, the show cause of the petitioner is not accepted. There are no reasons in support of the order. Even though the order is over four pages long, it is a non-speaking order. It is too late in the day to contend that such a proceeding is not a quasi judicial proceeding. Being a quasi judicial proceeding, the order passed therein has to be a reasoned order. As to what is the reasoned order is dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India V/s. M.L. Capoor, 1974 AIR(SC) 87 and in particular para 28 thereof; the reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based. Here even though the order purports four pages order, it is clarified that in absence of any support thereof, such an order cannot be sustained. I may also note the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. V/s. Union of India, 1979 AIR(SC) 798 wherein the Apex Court held that reasoned order does not mean that the order shows application of mind alone. The order must disclose the reasons in support thereof. In that case order of MRTP Commission was under challenge. The Apex Court came to a finding that the Commission did not apply its mind, inasmuch as some of the clauses in the agreement were held to be violative of the Act where others were held to be valid, still the order of the Commission was set aside on the ground that there was no reason in support of the order. Apart from this there is another serious infirmity in the order. It is not in dispute that it is not the Mukhiya and the Mukhiya alone to select and appoint Anganbari Sewika and Sahaika. It is the collective body, of which Mukhiya is one of the persons. As per Executive Circular in this regard itself the sole responsibility of this entire selection process and procedure has been vested on Child Development Project Officer, who is the technical person in this regard and under whose Chairmanship these decisions were taken. Thus to hold Mukhiya responsible for any appointment wrongfully made is against the concept of joint responsibility. A single member cannot be responsible unless there is strong evidence in support thereof. The third reason why this order cannot be supported is to be in what the Apex Court said in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma V/s. State of Punjab, 2001 AIR(SC) 2524 and in particular para 10 thereof where considering primarily the provision of Punjab Municipal Act, which was similar to Section 18(5) of the Bihar Raj Panchayat Act, the Apex Court held that the expression used in the Act is 'an abuse of powers', which is much more than a wrong decision and again is more than on singular occasion. There has to be serious deliberate misdeed and only then action can be taken. A wrong decision is not within the ambit of abuse of power. A reasoned decision must be justified for some reason and not ipso facto mala fide.