High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 3 September 2019 · Citation: (2019) 09 CHH CK 0019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Goutam Bhaduri, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 — Section 40
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 3013 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 323 words

Goutam Bhaduri, J

1.

Heard.

2.

The present petition is against the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the Collector, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa in exercise of power

under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made a complaint of corruption against two persons/officer bearers, which in turn

resulted into counter action and report was made by those officers before the police. Subsequently, the SDM has recommended the Collector for

action against the petitioner and the collector without any opportunity of hearing and principle as laid down in the case of Kailash Kumar Dangi Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh 2000 AIHC 1033 has passed the order of removal. He would further submit that though the petitioner has already preferred

a revision before the Commissioner, which is pending adjudication against the order of the Collector dated 22.07.2019, however, since no opportunity

of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Collector, this Court can also adjudicate the issue.

4.

Considering the facts of this case and the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision is pending before the

Commissioner, at one time simultaneous exercise of jurisdiction would not be proper. Therefore, since the revision is already been filed before the

Commissioner, the Commissioner is directed to decide the same on its own merits. It is further observed that the Commissioner shall also take into

account the argument raised by the petitioner before this Court for not granting of the opportunity of hearing by the Collector. The Commissioner,

therefore, shall also be obliged to see whether opportunity of hearing was granted and the principles of natural justice were followed by the Collector

while passing the order. The Commissioner shall decide the pending revision within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.