SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD,J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, is under challenge, by which, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 05.02.2015 passed in P.D. Case No.15 of 2010-11 has been affirmed by dismissing the appeal filed against the said order.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has been appointed as Pradhan since long and the father of the petitioner namely Sarju Kapari was the Pradhan of the village and after his death, the petitioner was appointed as Pradhan of the Village vide order dated 02.12.1986 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka in P.A. Case No.93 of 1985-86. The petitioner while discharging his duty as Pradhan of the village has been found to be involved in commission of some irregularities of grabbing the land as also in involvement of criminal case, in pursuance thereto, one complaint has been made before the competent authority, in pursuance thereto, an inquiry was conducted regarding alleged commission of irregularities committed by the petitioner and to that effect, the Circle Officer has conducted an inquiry and submitted a report before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka vide letter dated 07.02.2007 and 23.02.2007 stating therein that the Pradhan has not encroached any land but according to the petitioner, without appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter one FIR has also been instituted and subsequent thereto, his Pradhani has been taken away, upon which, the appellate authority, has declined to interfere with such decision of the competent authority, against which, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that when there is conclusive inquiry report submitted by the Circle Officer as would appear from annexure-3 series, therefore, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to take decision for dismissal of Pradhani right of the petitioner after appreciating the said inquiry report but having not done so, gross illegality has been committed. His further submission is that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has also been agitated before the appellate authority as well as revisional authority but both the authorities have been declined to give any finding to that effect, therefore, the order impugned, is not sustainable in the eye of Law. ;