Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1204 (PAT)

Ujjwal Kumar v. State of Bihar

2014-12-08

JYOTI SARAN

body2014
JYOTI SARAN, J.:–The petitioner has questioned the order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna in Case No. 33 of 2012 whereby he has been held disqualified to hold the post of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Rambhadrapur in the district of Darbhanga under the provisions of Section 136(1)(c), (d), (i) and Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the rules framed thereunder. 2. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of at stage of admission. 3. Facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner filed his nomination to contest the post of Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Rambhadrapur on 12.3.2011. The election was held on 30.4.2011 in which the petitioner succeeded. The oath of Mukhiya was administered to the petitioner on 26.5.2011. Seven months thereafter the respondent no. 11 filed a complaint before the State Election Commission, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-2 series which complaint was filed on 30.1.2012. According to the complainant-private respondent, the petitioner was disqualified for contesting the election inasmuch as he continued to be in the services of the Maharaja Rameshwar Singh Mithila Mahavidalaya, Anandpur (Sahora), District-Darbhanga. In support of the allegations, the complainant enclosed an information received by him on 14.1.2012 from the Public Information Officer-cum-District Education Officer which showed the petitioner to be in services of the college since 5.2.2003. The petitioner contested the complaint before the State Election Commission and in which he produced an order bearing letter no. 7 of 2009 dated 17.7.2009 issued by the Secretary of the college whereby the service of the petitioner stood terminated on account of his continued absence since the date of his appointment. It was the stand of the petitioner that although he was appointed in the college on 5.2.2003 but he never attended the college thereafter nor did he draw any financial benefits and it is in this background that his services were finally terminated on 17.7.2009, which order was never questioned by him before any forum. 4. The Election Commission on the basis of the materials on record and the pleadings of the contesting parties proceeded to pass the impugned order whereby the petitioner was held disqualified to contest the election by virtue of his service in the college. The petitioner being aggrieved is before this Court. 5. 4. The Election Commission on the basis of the materials on record and the pleadings of the contesting parties proceeded to pass the impugned order whereby the petitioner was held disqualified to contest the election by virtue of his service in the college. The petitioner being aggrieved is before this Court. 5. Mr. Rajendra Narayan has appeared for the petitioner while the State is represented by the State counsel. The State Commission is represented by Mr. Amit Shrivastava and the private respondent is represented by Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha. 6. A very short submission has been made by Mr. Narayan to contest the impugned order. He submits that in view of the termination order dated 17.7.2009, there was no occasion for the Commission to disqualify the petitioner. He further submits that though the order impugned has an effect of unseating an elected representative but the decision has been arrived at by mere comparative appreciation of the documentary evidence on record and even in absence of any evidence falsifying the stand of the petitioner. It was contended that though allegations of ante dating and manufacturing of document has been set up by the Commission to pass the impugned order but neither the authorities of the college were examined before such a conclusion was arrived at nor did the Commission satisfy itself by summoning the records. He thus submits that the order has been passed on mere conjuctures. 7. The argument of Mr. Narayan has been contested by learned counsel appearing for the Commission and the complainant who submits that the appointment of the petitioner in the college not being disputed, it is only when the complaint in question was filed that the petitioner has obtained the alleged order of termination which is a manufactured document prepared in collusion with the college authority. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. The facts are not in dispute and thus are not being reiterated. The only aspect which requires to be seen is whether there were materials on record to demonstrate that the order of termination is a manufactured document. 9. The facts discussed hereinabove reflect that the foundation of the allegation made by the applicant before the Commission rests on the information given by the Public Information Officer which merely shows that the petitioner was appointed on 5.2.2003 and nothing further. 9. The facts discussed hereinabove reflect that the foundation of the allegation made by the applicant before the Commission rests on the information given by the Public Information Officer which merely shows that the petitioner was appointed on 5.2.2003 and nothing further. Following the complaint, an enquiry was conducted by the Senior Deputy Collector who submitted his report on 5.1.2013 which forms part of Annexure-7 series and in which he has fairly admitted that there were no documents on record to show the attendance of the petitioner, any allotment of work or any payment made to him, right after his appointment on 5.2.2003 until his termination on 17.7.2009. A second report was submitted by the same Senior Deputy Collector which forms part of Annexure-11 series and which though carries the statement of the Secretary as well as the Principal supporting the termination of the petitioner in view of his continued absence since his appointment but according to the Senior Deputy Collector, the records generated suspicion as regarding the attendance register produced by the petitioner. It is on the basis of these very documents and the comments of the Senior Deputy Collector that the Chief Election Commissioner, Bihar has rendered the termination order dated 17.7.2009 as an ante dated document which has been fabricated to give undue advantage to the petitioner. 10. I am rather surprised by the conclusions drawn by the State Election Commissioner even in absence of any materials which support his conclusion. Whereas the complaint rests entirely on the information relating to the appointment of the petitioner on 5.2.2003, the enquiry report submitted by the Senior Deputy Collector supports the case of the petitioner regarding his termination from service due to continued absence. In fact the Senior Deputy Collector also states that there is complete absence of documents relating to the allotment of work to the petitioner, any payment made to him or his attendance. Meaning thereby there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever attended the college since after his appointment. Although the Election Commission was proceeding on the complaint in exercise of powers vested under Section 136(2) of the act but its conclusion had a far reaching effect of unseating an elected representative. There is a complete lack of materials to support the conclusion drawn by the Election Commission on the issue of ante dating or fabricating the order of termination. There is a complete lack of materials to support the conclusion drawn by the Election Commission on the issue of ante dating or fabricating the order of termination. In fact as rightly contended by Mr. Narayan, the conclusions are based on mere conjectures. The Election Commission has not made any endeavour to either examine the college authority or to summon the records to satisfy itself and yet has given a finding of fact merely on the documents on record which in no manner supports the issue of ante dating or fabrication. The decision making process adopted by the Commission is infracted seriously and cannot be upheld and the conclusion drawn thereon is a conjectural opinion. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, the order impugned dated 22.8.2014 passed by the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna in Case No. 33 of 2012 cannot be upheld and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner stands restored to his post of Mukhiya. 12. The writ petition is allowed. I.A. No. 6908 of 2014 stands disposed of. ?