Page No.1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Reserved for orders on :15/12/2021

Order passed on : 07/01/2022

WPC No. 4162 of 2021

1. Santosh Nishad, S/o Shri Baldev Nishad, Aged About 50 Years, Posted

As Sarpanch Village Panchayat Sirsakhurd, R/o Village Sirsakhurd,

Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat

and Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,

Naya Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Durg, District Durg

Chhattisgarh.

5. Deviram Dhruw, S/o Late Bhaiyya Ram Dhruw, Aged About 58 Years

Varishtha Aantrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan Officer, Janpad

Panchayat Durg.

6. Vimal Kumar Dahariya, S/o Late Dukalu Ram Dahariya, Aged About 55

Years Assistant Aantrik Lekha Parikshan Evam Kararopan Officer,

Janpad Panchayat Durg.

7. Krishnamurty Yadav Member of Janpad (Circle No. 6), Sirsakhurd,

Chikhali, Indira Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh.,

---- Respondents

____________________________________________________________

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate

For State

:

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

For Respondent No.7

:

Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

CAV Order

07/01/2022

1. Heard on petition.

Page No.2

2. This petition has been brought challenging the impugned order passed

by Collector, Durg (respondent No.2) dated 23.9.2021 (Annexure P-13)

by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order

of respondent No.3 dated 4.3.2021 (Annexure-P11) was upheld.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was

elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Sirsakhurd in the jurisdiction

of District-Durg. Certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner

by a complaint (Annexure-P2). A preliminary inquiry was made on this

complaint without serving any copy of complaint upon the petitioner,

however, the petitioner submitted a written reply. Without giving any

consideration on the reply submitted by the petitioner, the preliminary

inquiry report was submitted, holding the petitioner responsible of

various irregularities alleged against him.

4. The petitioner was then served with a show-cause notice dated

11.11.2020(Annexure-P8) without supplying the copy of charge-sheet

or the annexures of the documents, however, the petitioner submitted

his reply vide Annexure-P9 to contest the proceeding against him. The

petitioner cross-examined the witnesses present in this inquiry and on

the basis of their admissions, there was nothing to establish any case

against the petitioner. The impugned order dated 4.3.2021 (Annexure-

P11) was passed by respondent No.3 invoking the power under

Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, holding the

petitioner responsible for the financial irregularities and directing his

removal from the post of Sarpanch. The appeal was preferred before

respondent No.2, in which, initially stay order was granted by order

dated 12.7.2021 (Annexure-P12), however, the appeal has been

dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.9.2021(Annexure-13).

Page No.3

5. It is submitted that in the whole inquiry none of the complainant was

examined in proof of the allegations made in the complaint. It was only

the Inquiry Officer, who was examined.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of M.P. High Court in

the case of Raja Raj Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in

(2000)1 M.P.H.T. 490, in which, it has been held that proper

opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to the person affected and no

such opportunity was available to the pet