Meena Khunte vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Roop Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondents No.1 to 4/State and Mr. S.I. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.

The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.4716 of 2023, by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner.

Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the appellant is elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khudubhatha, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.). The appellant is discharging her duty very honestly and sincerely as per provision of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and also as per direction of higher authorities. Respondents No. 6 to 9 filed complaints on 9.3.2022 and 5.4.2022 before respondent No. 5 against the appellant that she is misusing her post of Sarpanch and committed negligence that she is using JCB Machine for construction new pond and changed the place of pond without resolution of Gram Panchayat, prepared forged muster roll and also alleged several allegations and also they made complaint before the respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 directed respondent No. 5 to make an enquiry into the complaint. Respondent No. 5 enquired the case through his subordinate employee. The enquiry was produced before respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 5 submitted enquiry report before respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 (S.D.O. (Revenue), Sarangarh and Prescribed Officer (Panchayat) Sarangarh registered case. On 28.2.2023 respondent no. 4 had passed order whereby the appellant has been founded guilty and thereafter she was removed from her post of Sarpanch under section 40(1) of C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and disqualified for a period of six years to be elected. The appellant had filed appeal under section 91 of C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before respondent No. 3 (Collector) against the order dated 28.2.2023 passed by the respondent No. 4 (S.D.O. (Revenue) Sarangarh whereby the appellant has been removed from post of Sarpanch under section 40 of C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and disqualified for a period of six years to be elected, which has been registered as Appeal.

Respondent No. 3 has passed order dated 20.4.2023 whereby the order dated 28.2.2023 passed by respondent No. 4 has been set aside and directed to respondent No. 4 to decide the case on merit after clear legal enquiry and examination of complaint points. On 24.4.2023, respondents No. 6 to 9 have preferred appeal / revision memo under section 91 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before respondent No. 2 against the order dated 20.4.2023 passed by respondent No. 3. The appellant had filed writ petition being WPC No. 4716/2023 before this Court. On 9.11.2023 the learned Single Judge of this Court has decided the case finally and held that the appeal has been preferred on 24.4.2023 against the order dated 20.4.2023 but why the proceeding has not been initiated till 11.10.2023 and after about 6 months the order dated 20.4.2023 passed by Additional Collector has been stayed all of sudden wherein the case was remitted back to decide a case fresh after giving opportunity to pass reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from perversity and bad in law, hence it is liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition on the ground that if for any reason, the petitioner is having grievance, she can very well submit her objection before the revisional authority for its consideration and the revisional authority will decide the same in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge ought to have decided the case of the appellant on merit which was pointed out in the writ petition i.e. appeal proceeding is not maintainable and revision proceeding is maintainable despite the case has been treated as appeal by respondent No.2 and as per the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, different provisions have been provided for appeal and revision. The learned Single Judge has held that the appeal has been preferred on 24.04.2023 against the order dated 20.04.2023 but why the proceeding has not be initiated till 11.10.2023 and after about 6 months, the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Additional Collector has been stayed all of sudden wherein the case was remitted back to decide a case fresh after giving opportunity to pass reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has also not considered that only one member has executed Vakalatnama and remaining three persons have not been executed despite that appeal has been entertained and passed the stay order without providing any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. He also submits that learned Single Judge has failed to consider that respondents No.6 to 9 have not filed appeal within the prescribed limitation. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider the bad intention of respondents No.6 to 9 that they want to get the charge of Sarpanch so that they will disburse and withdraw the entire amount without doing any work. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and the fact that the case is fixed for tomorrow, we dispose of this writ appeal with a direction to the concerned Commissioner to decide the revision within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner and all the respondents are directed to cooperate in disposal of the revision.

Certified copy today.