Sanjay Kumar Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2321 Chatt

                                       -1-



                                                                           NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WPC No. 1730 of 2022
     • Sanjay Kumar Chandrakar S/o Govind Chandrakar, Aged About 30
       Years, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Agri Tehsil Thankamariya, District
       Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ---- Petitioner
                                     Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural
        Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur
        District Raiur Chhattisgarh.
     2. The Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
     3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authortiy, Saja,
        District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
     4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saja, District Bemetara
        Chhattisgarh.
                                                               ---- Respondents

For Petitioner - Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Advocate.

For State - Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.

Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the caveator.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 08-04-2022

1. It is submitted that the petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram

Panchayat Agri. The petitioner did excavating work from the village pond on the

basis of a permission granted to him by the panchas and the villagers of the

gram panchayat. The red soil (murum) extracted was used for filling up the

roads of the village. One Bhubneshwar Chandrakar made a complaint against

the petitioner making allegations of financial irregularities and enquiry was held

and a report was submitted vide Annexure-P/6, by which it was recommended

that the proceeding under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj

Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') be initiated against the

petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent

No.3, to which the petitioner submitted his reply and denied the allegations. It

is submitted that without considering the reply of the petitioner and only on the

basis of the enquiry report it was held that the petitioner had violated the rules

of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 (in short 'the Rules, 2015') and

by order dated 09-03-2022 (Annexure-P/1) the petitioner was removed from his

post.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred WPC No.1516/2022 which

was withdrawn by him. Subsequent to that he preferred appeal before the

Commissioner. The petitioner was then threatened and intimidated and forced

to withdraw the appeal, because of which he withdrew the appeal.

Therefore,the petitioner is before this Court. It is submitted that in the case of

Smt. Kanti Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, in WPC No.2675/2017

the coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order dated 11-12-2017 in

which it was held that the preliminary enquiry report which was obtained

behind the back of the petitioner was the only reason for show cause notice to

the concerned and his removal from the post, which was a clear case of non-

compliance of the principles of audi alteram partem. It is submitted that present

is also a similar case. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of D. Venkata Reddy Vs. R. Sultan and

others, (1976) 2 SCC 455, Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and

others, (2001) 6 SCC 260 and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector,

Raigad and others, (2012) 4 SCC 407.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has not handed over the charge

till date, hence, the status quo is in his favour. Therefore, appropriate order be

passed.

3. The State counsel representing the State respondents opposed the

submissions. It is submitted that after withdrawal of the appeal by the petitioner

he has remedy available to file revision before the appropriate authority,

therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the caveator opposes the submission and submits

that the petitioner has deliberately not made the caveator a party. The present

petition is not maintainable as the remedy for filing revision is available to the

petitioner under Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. It

is submitted that the petitioner himself filed the application before the Collector

praying for withdrawal of the appeal which is filed as Annexure-D/6 of the

caveat on 29-03-2022 in which he has not mentioned anything about his being

threatened or coerced to withdraw the appeal. Copy of the FIR which is filed

mentions the date and time of incident as 29-03-2022 at about 9:00 a.m. in the

morning and it was on the same day the application for withdrawal was filed in

the later part of the day, in which the petitioner did not chose to make any

complaint before the appellate Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner

has very clearly violated Rule 4 of the Rules, 2015 and the permission

(Annexure-P/3) on which the petition is basing his case is not in accordance

with law and requirement under Rule 4 of the Rules, 2015. Therefore, the

present petition is without any merits which may be dismissed.

5. In rebuttal, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there

is no denial of the respondents regarding not conducting of any enquiry on the

complaint against the petitioner as per Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993.

Further, it is not a case of misappropriation of public fund. It is also submitted

that the incident occurred on 29-03-2022, therefore, the petitioner was under

the influence of the threat, hence, he could not reveal about the same on the

same day.

6. Considered on the submissions.

7. The case in Smt. Kamti Bai (supra) and the case of the petitioner both

are not similar. The enquiry on the complaint filed by Bhubneshwar Chandrakar

was conducted by the CEO of Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetar in

which the petitioner has participated and also recorded his statement on

complaint and the enquiry report (Annexure-P/6) was submitted making

recommendation as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, it is not case that the

enquiry was made against the petitioner behind his back. The main allegation

against the petitioner is violation of Rule 4 of the Rules, 2015, which prohibits

prospecting or quarrying operation without prospecting licence or quarry

permit. As the Rules, 2015 provides for specific prescribed procedure for

obtaining licence for quarrying operation and it is not the claim of the petitioner

that he has obtained any such licence under the provisions of these Rules,

2015, therefore, it appears that the petitioner has no such case. The

allegations made by the petitioner regarding threats and inducement for

withdrawing the appeal cannot be enquired by this writ Court. However, it is

found that the present petition is without any substance, hence, it is dismissed

and disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge