Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 532 (PAT)

Jai Kishore Prasad Mandal v. State of Bihar

2013-04-23

SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA

body2013
ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel No. 20 for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication as contained in letter No. 624 dated 30th of January 2012 issued by the Special Work Officer, Panchayti Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, enclosing a copy of the enquiry report of the District Magistrate with respect to the various alleged irregularities committed by him. The petitioner, the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat was asked to submit his explanation to the Principal Secretary, Panchayti Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna, as to why he should not be removed from the post of Mukhiya, in terms of the provisions contained in Sub section (5) of Section 18 of the Bihar Panchayti Raj Act, 2006. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid explanation/notice was sought by the Officer on Special Duty of the department and not by the State Government and that too, without due application of mind and as such, the aforesaid notice dated 30th of January 2012, as contained in Annexure-7 suffers from patent illegality, deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that by the said communication, enclosing the enquiry report with respect to the alleged serious irregularities committed by the petitioner warranting an action under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation to the Principal Secretary, Panchayti Raj Department, Government of Bihar. However, no final order under Sub Section 5 of Section 18 of the aforesaid Act has been passed by the State Government till date. The petitioner has not filed any reply/explanation. 5. Considering the submissions of the parties, it would appear that under the provision of Sub section (5) of Section 18 of the Act, the State Government may pass an order for removal after providing an opportunity to the incumbent of the post with respect to the alleged irregularity/illegality. In the instant case, by the aforesaid letter dated 30th of January 2012 (Annexure-5), the petitioner was communicated along with the copy of the enquiry report of the District Magistrate, to submit his explanation to the Principal Secretary, Panchayti Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. In the instant case, by the aforesaid letter dated 30th of January 2012 (Annexure-5), the petitioner was communicated along with the copy of the enquiry report of the District Magistrate, to submit his explanation to the Principal Secretary, Panchayti Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. The paramount consideration under the aforesaid provision of law, is that the State Government is to pass an order after providing an opportunity to the incumbent to submit his explanation. In my opinion, the petitioner has been provided such an opportunity to submit his reply. As submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the State that no final order has been passed, it will be open for the petitioner to submit his explanation/reply pursuant to Annexure – 7 within a period of four weeks along with certified copy of the present order before the Principal Secretary, Panchayti Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the letter to submit his explanation as per Annexure-7. 7. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions.