PRAFULLA CHANDRA SAMANTARAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed an order passed by the Collector, Khurda removing him from the office of the Sarpanch, Baghmari Grama Panchayat in exercise of power conferred by sub-Section (6) of Section 115 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as communicated by Memo No. 438/GP dated July 26, 1999.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch, Baghmari Grama Pan-chayat in the district of Khurda. He was arrested on February 26, 1999 in connection with the investigation of a criminal case in which he was an accused and remanded to jail custody till March 11, 1999 and thereafter again till June 14, 1999. While in custody he handed over charge to the Naib Sarpanch on March 10, 1999. It appears from the enquiry report submitted by the District Panchayat Officer that the petitioner also intimated the said fact of handing over charge to the Block Development Officer, Begunia by his letter No. 38 dated March 20, 1999 and that the Block Development Officer in his turn intimated the said fact of handing over charge by his letter dated March 26, 1999. It appears that Arura Rana and some others Ward Members of the Baghmari Grams Panchayat complained to the Collector, Khurda that the writ petitioner had not convened any meeting of the Grama Panchayat for a continuous period of three months. On the basis of the said complaint, the Collector, Khurda deputed the District Panchayat Officer, Khurda to make necessary enquiry and to report. On June 18, 1999 the District Panchayat Officer submitted a report disbelieving the claim of the petitioner that he handed over charge to the Naib Sarpanch on March 10, 1999 merely on the ground that the writ petitioner while in custody could not hand over charge in the office of the Grama Panchayat. On the basis of the said report, the Collector, Khurda exercised his power under Section 115 (6) of the Panchayat Act and removed him from the office of the Sarpanch.

(3.) We have called for the original records and perused the same. It appears to us that the District Panchayat Officer submitted his report without applying his mind and without appreciating the relevant facts and circumstances. It was never claimed by the petitioner that he handed over charge in the office of the Grama Panchayat. Annexure 2 to the writ petition shows that he by a letter written from the Jail on March 10, 1999 handed over charge to the Naib Sarpanch. It is also not correct that charge cannot be handed over by a person in custody. It is possible and desirable that a person holding public office will hand over charge from the custody to a competent person for proper functioning of the office. After the writ petitioner had handed over charge to the Naib Sarpanch, responsibility of convening meeting was shifted to the Naib Sarpanch and the writ petitioner could not be held responsible for not convening the meeting.