Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 386 (CHH)

Pankaj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-11-12

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. On petitioner's complaint, proceedings under Section 41 A of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1960 was initiated against respondent No.5, the President of Municipal Council, Mahasamund. At the end of enquiry, the competent authority found that the first charge; regarding engagement of excess number of Tractors without seeking approval of the Municipal/president in council has not been proved against respondent No.5 because for the said charge the concerned Chief Municipal Officer has already been punished. With respect to the second charge; also, it was mentioned that the issue of splitting of minor works each of Rs.1 Lakh has been done by the concerned Chief Municipal Officer and not by the President. In so far as the third charge; is concerned, the President was found guilty of consuming more quantity of diesel than the prescribed limit of 80liters per month, however, the competent authority found that the said charge is not of serious nature which would call for removal of the elected president from the office. 2. In Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2001) 6 SCC 260 , the Supreme Court has held thus:- “7. In a democracy governed by rule of law, once elected to an office in a democratic institution, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law. That a returned candidate must hold and enjoy the office and discharge the duties related therewith during the term specified by the relevant enactment is a valuable statutory right not only of the returned candidate but also of the constituency or the electoral college which he represents. Removal from such an office is a serious matter. It curtails the statutory term of the holder of the office. A stigma is cast on the holder of the office in view of certain allegations having been held proved rendering him unworthy of holding the office which he held. Therefore, a case of availability of a ground squarely falling within Section 22 of the Act must be clearly made out. A President may be removed from office by the State Government, within the meaning of Section 22, on the ground of “abuse of his powers” (of President), inter alia. Therefore, a case of availability of a ground squarely falling within Section 22 of the Act must be clearly made out. A President may be removed from office by the State Government, within the meaning of Section 22, on the ground of “abuse of his powers” (of President), inter alia. This is the phrase with which we are concerned in the present case. 11. The expression “abuse of powers” in the context and setting in which it has been used cannot mean use of power which may appear to be simply unreasonable or inappropriate. It implies a wilful abuse or an intentional wrong. An honest though erroneous exercise of power or an indecision is not an abuse of power. A decision, action or instruction may be inconvenient or unpalatable to the person affected but it would not be an abuse of power. It must be such an abuse of power which would render a Councillor unworthy of holding the office of President. Inasmuch as an abuse of power would entail adverse civil consequences, the expression has to be narrowly construed. Yet again, the expression employed in Section 22 is “abuse of his powers or of habitual failure to perform his duties”. The use of plural — powers, and the setting of the expression in the framing of Section 22 is not without significance. It is suggestive of legislative intent. The phrase “abuse of powers” must take colour from the next following expression — “or habitual failure to perform duties”. A singular or casual aberration or failure in exercise of power is not enough; a course of conduct or plurality of aberration or failure in exercise of power and that too involving dishonesty of intention is “abuse of powers” within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act. The legislature could not have intended the occupant of an elective office, seated by popular verdict, to be shown exit for a single innocuous action or error of decision.” 3. In the case in hand, the competent authority has already concluded that the third charge against the President, Municipal Council, Mahasamund was not of serious nature. Consuming more fuel per month than the prescribed limit does not in-effect amount to a financial irregularity or dereliction of duty of such a nature warranting removal of an elected person. In the case in hand, the competent authority has already concluded that the third charge against the President, Municipal Council, Mahasamund was not of serious nature. Consuming more fuel per month than the prescribed limit does not in-effect amount to a financial irregularity or dereliction of duty of such a nature warranting removal of an elected person. It is not the allegation that the President withdrew the amount without, in fact, consuming the diesel but the allegation is of consuming more than the prescribed limit. Thus, the element of misappropriation or embezzlement is missing. 4. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tarlochan Dev Sharma (supra), this Court is unable to take any different view of the matter than the one taken by the competent authority. 5. No case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.