The Secretary of a Grama Sasan under the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964, is not a State Government servant.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Patra, J. - By this writ petition, the petitioner Kasinath Pani seeks quashing of the order dated 14-8-1995 (Annexure-3) terminating his services as Secretary of Gaiba Grama Sasan.

2. The petitioner was serving as Secretary of Gaiba Grama Sasan at the material time. The Block Development Officer, Gumma (Opp. Party No. 3) issued letter No. 1609 dated 15-7-1996 (Annexure-1) directing the Sarpanch to terminate the services of the petitioner as Secretary after discussing the matter in the Grama Panchayat. In the said letter the Block Development Officer clearly stated that he issued the instruction pursuant to the letter of the District Panchayat Officer and the direction of the Collector. The Gaiba Grama Panchayat accordingly held its meeting on 26-7-1995 but decided unanimously not to remove the petitioner from service as he bad been serving quite satisfactorily. In August, 1995 as a consequence of dissolution of all the Panchayat in the State the ejected member and Sarapanches of the Grama Panchayats ceased to function and so far as Gaiba Panchayat was concerned, the Social Extension Officer. Gumma Block (opp. party No. 1) remained in charge of the said Panchayat who in the capacity of the Sarpanch issued the impugned order dated 14-8-1995 (Annexure-3) removing the petitioner from service as the Secretary.

3. Notice being issued, the District Panchayat Officer and the Collector, Gajapati, opp. parties 4 and 5 have filed their counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, that this Court has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the order removing the petitioner from service as Secretary. According to them, the petitioner as Secretary of the Grama Sasan was a Government servant and the appropriate forum to challenge the impugned order was the State Administrative Tribunal established u/s 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The opp. parties 4 and 5 have also contended in their counter-affidavit that the impugned order of termination of service is appealable u/s 133 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Orissa Act") and the petitioner having not availed of the alternative remedy is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. With regard to the validity of the order of termination of service, they have pleaded that it was passed in accordance with law.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following questions arise for consideration :

(i) Is the Secretary of a Grama Sasan constituted under the Orissa Act a State Government servant ?

(ii) Is the writ petition liable to be dismissed at the threshold merely because the petitioner has not availed of the alternative remedy of filing appeal u/s 133 of the Orissa Act against the order of termination of service ?

(iii) Whether the impugned order of termination of service is valid in law ?

5. Let us consider the questions posed above seriatim.

The learned Additional Government Advocate relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in R.N.A. Britto Vs. Chief Executive Officer and others, contends that the post of Secretary of Grama Sasan under the Orissa Act is a civil, post under the State and the petitioner thus being a Government servant could only challenge the Order of termination of his service before the State Administrative Tribunal. Shri Nayak for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the provisions of the Karnataka Village Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Karnataka Act") construing which the Supreme Court in R. N. A. Britto's case (supra) held the Panchayat Secretaries in the State of Karnataka to be Government servants are quite different from the provisions of the Orissa Act and the Orissa Rules and as such the ratio of R.N.A. Britto's case cannot be extended to the petitioner's case.

6. The question whether a Mauzadar in Assam Valley is the holder of a civil post under the State and is entitled to the protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution came up for consideration befo