Back
2020 Supreme(Ori) 85
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, SAVITRI RATHO, JJ.
Rajiv Kumar Parida – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Others – Respondents
W.A. No. 165 of 2020, W.P. (C) No. 1523 of 2000
Decided On : 24-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. S.P. Mishra, P.K. Rath, S.K. Behera, P. Nayak, S. Das, S. Rath.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Mrs. Suman Patnaik, Mr. D.P. Dhal, Mr. B.S. Das Parida, S.K. Dash, S. Mohapatra, K. Mohanty, M.K. Agarwala.
The power of suspension of an elected Sarpanch under Section 115 of the Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 must be exercised sparingly and with utmost care and caution, only in appropriate cases, on the basis of reliable and cogent material. The reasons given in the order of suspension should be specific and clear and not vague and cryptic.
Headnote:
Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 - Section 115 - Suspension of Sarpanch - Wilful violation of provisions - Abuse of powers - Detrimental to the interest of Grama Panchayat - Suspension order must be based on specific findings - Reasons to be recorded - Discretion of State Government - Judicial review.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Rajiv Kumar Parida, challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which had quashed the order of suspension of the respondent, Smt. Manjubala Pradhan, as the Sarpanch of Kotsahi Gram Panchayat. The suspension order was passed by the State Government on the basis of a report by the District Panchayat Officer, which found that the respondent had wilfully violated the provisions of Section 19 of the Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (the Act) and had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Grama.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of suspension was not justified as there was no specific finding by the State Government that the respondent had wilfully violated the provisions of the Act or had abused her powers. The Court also held that the reasons given in the suspension order were vague and cryptic and did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 115 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of suspension of the respondent was justified? 2. Whether the reasons given in the suspension order were sufficient?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the order of suspension was not justified as there was no specific finding by the State Government that the respondent had wilfully violated the provisions of the Act or had abused her powers. The Court also held that the reasons given in the suspension order were vague and cryptic and did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 115 of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which had quashed the order of suspension of the respondent.
JUDGMENT :
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
1. Appellant Rajiv Kumar Parida seeks to challenge the judgment dated 17.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by Smt. Manjubala Pradhan-respondent no. 7, was allowed and the order of her suspension dated 26.09.2019 as the Sarpanch of Kotsahi Gram Panchayat, was quashed and set aside.
2. The case set up by respondent No. 7 in the writ petition was that she was elected as Sarpanch of Kotsahi Gram Panchayat by defeating the wife of the present appellant-Rajiv Kumar Parida in the year 2017. Sri Rajiv Kumar Parida, opposite party no. 7 in the Writ Petition bearing WP (C) No. 1523 of 2020, filed a complaint before the authorities including the Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore, making certain allegations against the respondent no. 7-writ petitioner. The Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore entrusted the matter to the District Panchayat Officer, Balasore, opposite party no. 4, for enquiry. When the matter was pending with the District Panchayat Officer, the present appellant-Rajiv Kumar Parida filed a writ petition, bearing WP (C) No. 23538 of 2017, before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the Collector and District Magistrate to decide his (appellant’s) representation within a time frame. The Collector and District Magistrate thereupon required the District Panchayat Officer to expedite the enquiry and submit report, who submitted a detailed report on 29.12.2017 concluding therein that although all the works have been completed, but proper procedures as per the Government guidelines, have not been followed. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent no. 7-writ petitioner-Sarpanch and also to the Panchayat Executive Officer, for not following the procedures and guidelines of the Government. The District Panchayat Officer also requested the Executive Engineer, RWSS to verify the ratio of population in number of TWS project taken up in the Gram Panchayat with reference to the existing tube wells.
3. That on the basis of the said report, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent no. 7-writ petitioner by the Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore to which she submitted a detailed reply on 5.5.2018. The District Panchayat Officer, Balasore-opposite party no. 4 issued notice to the respondent no. 7-writ petitioner to which she has submitted her reply on 15.5.2018 stating that she has already filed reply to show-cause notice issued against her on 6.2.2018, and further she has also submitted reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Collector, Balasore, both of which may be treated as reply to show-cause notice dated 15.05.2018. The Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore-opposite party no. 3 vide his letter dated 26.9.2019 forwarded the matter to opposite party no. 2-Additional Secretary to Government, Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, Odisha for taking action against the respondent no. 7-writ petitioner for wilfully violating the provisions of Section 19 of Odisha Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) who by invoking Sub-Section (2) of Section 115 as well as Section 19 of the Act, placed the respondent no. 7-writ petitioner-Sarpanch under suspension with immediate effect.
4. The writ petition was contested by the State Government, but without filing any counter affidavit. However, stand of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State before the learned Single Judge was that the Government having exercised the power under sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Act, there remains very limited scope for this Court to interfere with the same. He submitted that outcome of the fact finding enquiry made by the Collector and District Magistrate clearly discloses that the respondent no. 7-Sarpanch has wilfully violated the provisions of Section 19 of the Act and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of Grama.
5. Learned Single Judge relying on earlier judgments of this Court
