SUNAINA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent, the subject-matter of assail is the order dated 14th August, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in G. W. J. C. No. 15843 of 2007 (reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 243) (Pat), whereby he has overturned the order dated 8th November, 2007 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in Panchayat Raj Appeal No. 32 of 2007, wherein the appellate authority had reversed the order dated 13th June, 2007 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, who had passed an order under Section 44(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (for brevity, 'the Act'), whereby he had directed removal of the fourth respondent herein as Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti for having incurred disqualification under Section 46(3) of the Act as she had not held the meeting as commanded under the said Act.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that on the basis of a complaint made by one Shweeta Devi, the writ petitioner, along with other members of the Panchayat Samiti a proceeding under Section 44(4) was initiated by the Divisional Commissioner. The principal allegation against the elected Pramukh was that she had not convened the meeting as required under Section 46(1) and other provisions of the Act within a span of two months inasmuch as the first meeting after election of the Samiti was held on 31st July, 2006 and the second meeting was convened on 30th April, 2007. It was contended in the complaint petition that omission on the part of the Pramukh in not holding the meeting satisfied the requirement of wilful omission as engrafted under Section 44(4) of the Act and, therefore, the consequence has to be removal from the post.

(3.) Before the Commissioner the stand of the Pramukh was that she made an endeavour to convene the meeting but the Block Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, who has a role, did not co-operate and on some occasions played hide and seek on some pretext or other,, as a consequence of which the meeting could not be held and, therefore, the said omission cannot be treated as wilful omission, attracting violation under Section 46(3) of the Act. The Commissioner, as is evident from order passed by him, after adverting to the rival submissions raised on behalf of the parties came to an unequivocal conclusion that the Pramukh had not carried out the statutory obligation and there was wilful omission on her part and, therefore, order of removal was the eventual resultant and, accordingly, he so directed.