Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 850 (ORI)

Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. State Of Orissa

2018-12-17

BISWANATH RATH

body2018
JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves a challenge to the order of suspension passed by the competent authority on 30.10.2018, appearing at Annexure-1. 2. Short background involved in the case is that petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of Khannagar Grama Panchayat under Dasarathpur Block in the election held in March, 2017. Petitioner claimed to have the support of the opposite party. Assailing the order at Annexure-1, the petitioner alleged that for the political opposition of the petitioner to the ruling party in the State, the candidates sponsored by the ruling party after losing the election in connivance and with aid of the government officials hatching conspiracy with ulterior motive in issuing the suspension order. On the premises that the suspension order is not disclosing any reason of suspension, further being a cryptic and vague order in absence of any disclosure on satisfaction of either of the grounds enumerated under Section 100(1) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964. Therefore, Sri Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the minor suspension order involved herein, taking this Court to the provision at Section 115 (1) and (2) of the Act contended that the attempt of the State authority in placing the petitioner under suspension is an indicator of political vendetta. On the premises of non-disclosure of any reason and for not providing the petitioner an opportunity before passing such order, Sri Acharya, learned senior counsel claimed that the impugned order since arbitrary and invalid for remaining contrary to the provisions contained in Section 115 of the Act should be interfered with and set aside. Sri Acharya, learned senior counsel further contended that once the petitioner becomes an elected representative, prevention of the petitioner from discharging his responsibility of Sarpanch will be amounting to affect the right involved with the petitioner involving a Grama Panchayat election, being an elected representative. 3. Miss. Sri Acharya, learned senior counsel further contended that once the petitioner becomes an elected representative, prevention of the petitioner from discharging his responsibility of Sarpanch will be amounting to affect the right involved with the petitioner involving a Grama Panchayat election, being an elected representative. 3. Miss. Samapika Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel in her opposition to the submission of Sri Acharya, taking this Court to the provision at Section 115 (2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act and the suspension order at Annexure-1, contended that for the power of the competent authority under subSection (2) of Section 115 of the Grama Panchayat Act, further the suspension order having only been passed on 30.10.2018 on contemplation of initiation of a proceeding involving the petitioner, it is not the time to interfere in such order. Miss. Mishra, further also contended that looking to the time gap between moving of the petitioner to this Court at this stage is also otherwise premature. 4. Considering the pleadings and rival plea of the respective parities, this Court looking to the impugned order finds the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority on exercise of power under Section 115(2) of the Grama Panchayat Act, 1964. Looking to the provision contained in Section 115 (1) and (2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, this Court finds the provision reads as follows: 115. Suspension and removal of Sarpanch, NaibSarpanch and member: (1) If the State Government, on the basis of a report of the Collector or the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, or suo motu are of the opinion that circumstances exist to show that the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat willfully omits or refuses to carry out or violates the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder or abuse the powers, rights and privileges vested in him or acts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama and that the further continuance of such person in office would be detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat or the inhabitants of the Gram, they may after giving the person concerned reasonable opportunity of showing cause remove him from the office of Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be. (2) The State Government may, pending initiation of the proceeding on the basis of their opinion under Sub-section (1), by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, from the office. Reading of the aforesaid provision, provision at 115 (1) while permitting the competent authority to remove a Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch on being satisfied with the grounds indicated therein, Section 115 (2) authorizes a competent authority to suspend the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch pending initiation of the proceeding on the basis of their opinion under Sub-section (1) by an order and for the reasons to be recorded in writing. At this stage, on perusal of the suspension order, this Court finds the suspension order is an indicator of prima facie reason recorded in writing so as to the action of the Sarpanch are prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama. It is at this stage, this Court looking to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court involving U.P. Rajya Krishi Uptadan Mandi Parishad, Sanjib Rajan, vide 1993(4) SLR 543 , finds ordinarily the Court should not interfere with the order of suspension unless they are passed mala fide and without there being prima facie material on record involving the person suspended. 5. It is for the reasons indicated therein and for the order of suspension being passed in contemplation of initiation of a disciplinary proceeding under Subsection (1) of Section 115 of the said Act, even though this Court finds that the petitioner is an elected representative and by the action of the competent authority, the right of an elected representative has been curtailed, but however, the action having been taken by the competent authority pending initiation of disciplinary proceeding and further keeping in view the time gap in between, this Court finds the move of the petitioner assailing the impugned order at Annexure-1 becomes premature. Dismissal of the writ petition at this stage, on being premature, shall not curtail the right of the petitioner to move this Court in the event no disciplinary proceeding is initiated and concluded within a reasonable period or in the event the petitioner is kept under suspension for long period in the garb of initiation of disciplinary proceeding. 6. For the observations made hereinabove, this Court while declining to entertain this writ petition at this stage, dismisses the same. 6. For the observations made hereinabove, this Court while declining to entertain this writ petition at this stage, dismisses the same. But in the circumstances, there is no order as to cost.