GOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order of N. P. Singh, J. dismissing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Appellant moved this Court against an order dated 16th February, 1976 passed by the State Government in the Department of Planning and Development (Rural Development), Directorate of Panchayati Raj, removing him from the office of Mukhia, Gere Gram Panchayat, in purported exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 (2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. N. P. Singh, J., found no merit in the application and dismissed the same by his judgment and order dated 30-6-1976.

(2.) The appellant was elected as the Mukhia of Gere Gram Panchayat in the year 1970. District Panchayat Officer, Gaya reported certain acts of commission and omission on the part of the appellant and the District Development Officer under this letter dated 1-10-1973 forwarded the same to the Deputy Director, Panchayati Raj. The Deputy Director of Panchayati Raj, enquired into the said allegations and submitted a report to the. State Government, According to the appellant, the Deputy Director did not recommend the removal of the appellant from the office as he was not satisfied that the charges levelled against him were proved. Notice calling upon the appellant to show cause why should he not be removed from the office of Mukhiya was served upon the appellant under a memo of the Panchayati Raj Directorate. On receipt of the notice the appellant requested the State Government to stay the proceedings on the ground that a criminal case had been lodged against him but also stated that in case the State Government thought it necessary to proceed with the enquiry then he should be furnished with the copies of certain documents. The Deputy Director, Panchayati Raj, under his letter, dated 13-5-1975 enclosed copies of the documents demanded by the appellant and again emphasised that if cause was not shown within 15 days, it would be presumed that the appellant had no cause to show. The appellant, however, reiterated what he had said earlier that the enquiry should be stayed until the disposal of the criminal case. This time he also stated that a copy of the report submitted by the District Magistrate, Gaya, should be furnished to him so that he could prepare his defence. Nothing, however, was said about the demand of the appellant for a copy of the report submitted by the District Magistrate, Gaya, or on his request to stay the enquiry until the disposal of the criminal case. The appellant was served, however, with the order dated 16-2-1976, removing him from the office of Mukhiya. In his application under Article 226 of the Constitution the appellant raised several contentions. The learned single Judge found no merit in the application and dismissed the writ application.

(3.) Although several contentions have been raised before us on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Shree Nath Singh, appearing for him, has, however, primarily emphasised upon the contention that the order removing the appellant from the office of Mukhia, is without jurisdiction because the respondents, before making the impugned order neither did accord fair and proper hearing to him nor record any reason in support thereof and thus violated the principles of natural justice in more than one way. Right of hearing, acknowledged under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, was observed only in the form and not in the substance. This alone according to Mr. Singh was sufficient for this court to quash the impugned order.