PANCHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred against order dated 3.3.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17422 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge has upheld the order of removal dated 29.10.2009, passed by the State Government exercising power under Section 18(5) of the Bihar State Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2006 (in short the Act). The facts of the case in short are as follows: - -

(2.) THE appellant was elected as Mukhia of Tika Rampur, Gram Panchayat Raj, Munger in the year 2006. Earlier her husband Rudal Rai was the Mukhia of the panchayat. Defalcation of public money came to light for the period 2001 -08 and a criminal case, being Mufassil Police Station Case No. 252 of 2007, was lodged under Sections 467, 468 & 420 I.P.C. on 5.12.2007 against the appellant, her husband and others. The appellant was taken into custody on 1.3.2008. She was granted bail on 30.6.2010 on her depositing a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/ - being her share of alleged defalcation, subject to the final outcome of the criminal case. The appellant is also an accused in a case under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, being Mufassil Police Station Case No. 112 of 2007 dated 18.6.2007, in which she is on anticipatory bail. A show cause bearing letter No. 1454, dated 2.4.2009 appended as Annexure -A to the supplementary affidavit to the LPA, was issued by the Deputy Director (Election), Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar as to why, she be not removed from the post of Mukhia in terms of Section 18(5) of the Act for alleged misconduct, acts of omissions and commissions, having skipped three consecutive meetings, being imprisoned on criminal charges, etc. The appellant submitted her reply which is contained in Annexure -7 to the writ petition. The Government did not find the explanation to be satisfactory, and passed order of her removal from the post of Mukhia in terms of Section 18(5) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of her removal, appellant filed writ petition in the High Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 17422 of 2009. The appellant submitted before the learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition that the criminal case instituted against her is totally false and concocted. She stated that she was in custody between 21.2.2008 to 30.6.2008, for a period much less than six months required for removal. She submitted that as she was imprisoned it cannot be said that the appellant willfully absented herself from three consecutive meetings of Panchayat. The learned Single Judge held that order of removal u/s. 18(5) of the Act does not suffer either from procedural or legal infirmity.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that power conferred u/s. 18(5) of the Act should be exercised sparingly as it entails extreme civil consequences of removal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon decisions rendered in case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in : (2001) 6 SCC 260 and Sharda Kailash Mittal vs. State of M.P., reported in : (2010) 2 SCC 319.