ABHINYATA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Mukhiya of Makarpur Gram Panchayat within Makhdumpur police station in the district of Jehanabad. By order of the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, dated 29.7.2009, as contained in Annexure 6, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Mukhiya in terms of Section 18(5) of the Panchayati Raj Act for alleged irregularity committed in appointment of Panchayat Shikshaks. The petitioner challenges the order on two grounds. Firstly, the procedure that was adopted for passing the said' order, which was serious repercussion and adverse civil consequences, is not in accordance with the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the Government had given an undertaking in the legislative body for action against the petitioner and thereafter asked the matter to be enquired into by the Collector requesting the Collector to send recommendation for initiating a proceeding for removal of the petitioner pursuant whereto the Deputy Director issued notice to the petitioner, which petitioner replied and the order impugned would show that that was an empty formality because the State had already undertaken to remove the petitioner and had sought specific recommendation in this regard from the Collector. All of which were done prior to the order itself and is noted in the order itself. The second ground is that even otherwise the order talks of all actions taken including the proceedings of Legislative Assembly, the enquiry got done from the Collector the allegation as against the petitioner but there is not a single line of any consideration and for that matter petitioner's show cause nor any reason disclosed for finding the petitioner guilty, which vitiates the order. It is on these initial submissions that an interim order was passed by this Court staying the impugned order.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State justifying their action.

(3.) While the writ petition was pending, an intervention petition was filed by one Hari Narain, asserting that it is on his complaint that the matter was taken up by the State and it is on his representation that the petitioner has been removed. Petitioner did not oppose the intervention but stated that the wife of the intervener had contested and lost as against the petitioner and therefore the personal grudge, which has actuated the whole thing. Stay having been granted, intervener has filed application for vacating the stay.