Gram Panchayat Paladikhurd vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors

The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Division Bilaspur passed in Revision Case No. 14A-89 / 2016-17 dated 19.04.2018, whereby revision preferred by respondent No. 4 was allowed and order passed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat dated 21.09.2016 was quashed.

Facts in brief are that respondent No. 4 was working on the post of Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Paladikhurd, Janpad Panchayat Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa(now Sakti). Various complaints were made against the petitioner with regard to manipulation of muster rolls, and subsequently, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat without affording any opportunity of hearing and without holding any inquiry terminated the services of respondent No. 4 vide order dated 21.09.2016.

The respondent No. 4 challenged said order by filing revision before the Commissioner, which was allowed vide order dated 19.04.2018 on the ground that respondent No. 4 was not afforded an opportunity and a forged report was prepared on instance of Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that there were serious allegations against respondent No. 4 as she manipulated muster rolls and committed financial irregularities. Ms. Matlani would further submit that decision was taken by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat strictly in accordance with the law and sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided. It is argued that revision preferred by respondent No. 4 before the Commissioner was not maintainable, and therefore, the order dated 19.04.2018 is bad in law. She would pray to allow this petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that incorrect provision of law or using incorrect nomenclature in an application or petition is not fatal to a case. They would submit that it is true that respondent No. 4 should have preferred an appeal against the order passed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat dated 21.09.2016 instead of revision. It is argued that the authority concerned considered the merits of the case and passed an order strictly in accordance with the law. They would further submit that the respondent No. 4 was removed from services without affording due opportunity of hearing, therefore, the order passed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat dated 21.09.2016 was rightly quashed. They would submit that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

With regard to submission made by Ms. Matlani, it is not in dispute that no inquiry, as envisaged in the scheme, for removal of Rojgar Sahayak was conducted. It is also true that the respondent No. 4 was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing and categorical finding has been recorded by Additional Commissioner in this regard in its order. It is also not in dispute that revision was not maintainable before the Commissioner and the respondent No. 4 should have preferred an appeal, but as revision was preferred challenging the order passed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat dated 21.09.2016. It is well settled principle of law that if a Court or authority legally possesses the power to pass a specific order, citing a wrong section or omitting the correct provision does not strip the Court of its jurisdiction and same would not be fatal to the case. The procedure contemplated to remove Rojgar Sahayak was not followed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, therefore, in my opinion the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division rightly allowed revision preferred by respondent No. 4.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.