SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Ori) 101

High Court Of Orissa
P. C. NAIK, P. K. PATRA
SUKANTA BHOI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
ORIGINAL JURDN.  6959  Of  1999
Decided On : 08/10/1999

Advocates Appeared:
A.TRIPATHY, C.A.RAO, S.K.BEHERA

Suspension of a Sarpanch under Section 115 (1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 requires a finding of wilful delinquency.

Headnote:

GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT - SUSPENSION OF SARPANCH - SECTION 115 (1) - SUSPENSION OF SARPANCH - WILFUL DELINQUENCY - ESSENTIALS - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE - CATEGORY - SUB-CATEGORY Suspension of Sarpanch under Section 115 (1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 requires a finding of wilful delinquency. The Collector must be satisfied that the Sarpanch wilfully omitted, refused, violated the provisions of the Act or the Rules or wilfully abused the rights and privileges vested in him or wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Grama Panchayat unless he so does wilfully. The object and purpose appear to be clear.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, Sarpanch of Satyabhamapur Gram Panchayat, challenged his suspension order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate under Section 115 (1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. The suspension was based on allegations of financial irregularities and disobedience of orders.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Collector failed to record any finding or come to the conclusion that the alleged delinquency was 'wilful'. The court held that the mere use of the word 'wilful' in the suspension order was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 115 (1) of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the Collector's order of suspension was valid in the absence of a finding of wilful delinquency? 2. Whether the petitioner was denied the principles of natural justice by not being given an opportunity of hearing before his suspension?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decisions in Baikunthanath Mohanty v. State of Orissa and Tarini Tripathy v. Collector, Koraput to hold that the Collector must be satisfied that the alleged delinquency was 'wilful' before passing an order of suspension under Section 115 (1) of the Act. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not denied the principles of natural justice as sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Act does not contemplate any hearing before suspension.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of suspension passed by the Collector and District Magistrate.

P. C. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Sukanta Bhoi, Sarpanch (under suspension) of Satyabhamapur Gram Panchayat under Balianta Police Station in the district of Khurda has challenged the order dated 27-5-1999 of his suspension passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Khurda under Section 115 (1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (Orissa Act 1 of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), communicated to him vide letter No. 337 dated 27-5-1999, Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner had been elected as the Sarpanch of Satyabhamapur Gram Panchayat in January, 1997. It is alleged that since he was not owing allegiance to the Ruling Party of the State, he incurred the wrath of the local leaders. At the instance of the local leaders who were opposed to the petitioner, the sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, vide his letter dated 16-12-1998 (Annexure-1) alleged that certain financial irregularities were committed by the petitioner while functioning as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and asked him to show cause. The allegations were as follows :- (1) Without obtaining approval of higher authority or Grama Sabha, Rs. 5,000. 00 had been spent as Advocate's fees in a case pending before the Orissa High Court, i. e. O. J. C. No. 6145/97. (2) There was temporary misappropriation of Rs. 12,000. 00 out of Grama Fund for seven months. (3) Without obtaining approval of Grama Sabha, an advance of Rs. 21,500. 00 had been taken for execution of nine works. (4) Without resolution of Grama Sabha Rs. 24,804. 00 had been taken as evidence for J. R. Y. Fund, Rs. 36,000. 00 had been given as advance for construction of Mirapur Bhoi Sahi Road; Rs. 5,000. 00 had been given as advance for Gotala Village Trinath Kothaghar; Rs. 17,000. 00 had been given in advance towards Hirapur Sahabaz Bhoi Kothaghar and Rs. 10,000. 00 had been given in advance for construction of the house of Banku Bhoi before completion of the works. (5) Work orders had been given for Rs. 57,242. 00 when only Rs. 5076. 00 was in J. R. Y. Fund. (6) The balance auction amount towards Tankapani Fair-weather Road had not been collected; and (7) There was insertion of a new page in the Grama Sabha Resolution Book.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, though he properly explained the above alleged irregularities, the Sub-Collector submitted a report to the Collector and District Magistrate, Khurda, inter alia, stating therein that the petitioner did not show cause in response to his letter dated 16-12-1998 (Annexure-1 ). The Collector and District Magistrate without asking the petitioner to show cause to the allegations levelled against him, passed the impugned order of suspension on 27-5-1999 (Annexure-4) on the ground that the petitioner wilfully disobeyed the order of the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar in not responding to his letter (Annexure-1) despite proper service of the said letter. According to the petitioner, the order (Annexure-4) is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 (1) of the Act and is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and hence liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) IN the counter filed by the opposite parties, it has been stated that the petitioner did not show cause in response to the notice issued to him by the Sub-Collector (vide Annexure-1) pointing out the irregularities committed by him. viz. misappropriation and mis-utilisation of Grama Panchayat fund, etc. According to the opposite parties, the impugned order of suspension is in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 (1) of the Act and is not in violation of the principles of natural justice and does not warrant any interference.

( 5 ) MR. C. A. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were not so grave as to invoke the provisions of Section 115 (1) of the Act. The second contention of Mr. Rao is that the Sub-Collector








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top