Chattisgarh High Court
Sukh Bai Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:11679
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 1368 of 2013
Sukh Bai Banjare W/o Shri Magan Lal Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Pahanda, Post And Ps Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara
C.G. --- Petitioner.
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Woman And
Child Welfare, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Thana Mandir Hasod, Post Office
Mandir Hasod, Distt. Raipur C.G, Chhattisgarh
2. Commissioner Raipur Divison, Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur
C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Additional Collector Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Collectorate
Balodabazar, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. , District : Balodabazar-
Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pahanda, Distt. Baloda Bazar
Bhatapara, C.G. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
5. Mrs. Savitri Bai Presently Posted As Anganwadi Karyakarta, Village
Pahanda, Post And Ps Baloda Baar, Through The Chief Executive Officer,
Janpad Panchayat Pahanda, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. , District
: Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, GA.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 03.04.2024
1. This Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.12.2012 passed by the revisional authority-Respondent No.2 (Annexure P-1), and order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the appellate authority/Respondent No.3 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Anganbadi worker passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baloda Bazar on 24.09.2007 (Annexure P-4) was affirmed.
2. The summed up facts of the case are that the Petitioner was Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11679 2 appointed as Anganbadi Karyakarta at Gram Panchayat, Pahanda from 12.03.1999 to 24.09.2007. She has preferred an application for grant of maternity leave on 22.05.2007 before the Project Officer/Supervisor and has handed over her charge to Smt Savitri Bai (Annexure P-3). On 14.06.2007, the Sarpanch of village Pahanda has made a complaint against the Petitioner regarding irregularities in the food stocks and on 23.05.2007, she was caught red-handed by the public representatives of the village and self help group and thereafter, an enquiry was initiated against her. During the said enquiry, it was found that on the said date, the Petitioner and her husband were caught red-handed when they were taking food stock of the Anganbadi to their home without any authority. Later on, Gram Panchayat, Pahanda has passed a resolution for terminating the Petitioner and forwarded the same to the Chief Executive Officer and thereafter, termination order dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure P-4) has been passed. The Petitioner has preferred an Appeal before Respondent No.3, which was rejected vide order dated 07.09.2009 (Annexure P-2) against which, she has preferred a Revision, which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure P-1). Hence, this Petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner by Gram Panchayat, Pahanda at the time of passing the resolution against her and only to appoint Respondent No.5 on the said post, she was terminated. He further submits that the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to pass an order under the appellate jurisdiction and the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11679 3 Collector should not have sub-delegated the power and Respondent No.2 has also no jurisdiction to entertain the revisional jurisdiction under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short the "Adhiniyam, 1993") and prays to allow the Petition.
4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel submits that the Petitioner has not challenged the termination order dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure P-4) and has only challenged the appellate order and the revisional order in this Petition. He further submits that the original order of termination, which has not been challenged, has attained finality and the services of the Petitioner were terminated after affording her opportunity of hearing and after conducting proper enquiry and the Petitioner has also participated in the said proceedings, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the action of the competent authority and as such, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. On putting some queries with regard to relevant rules, learned State counsel fairly submits that in the Adhiniyam, 1993, the guidelines have been issued relating to the appointment of Anganbadi Karyakarta and procedure for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakarta has been prescribed by the State Government by circular/guidelines dated 2-4-2008. He refers to Clause 13 of circular dated 2-4-2008 which prescribes the procedure for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakarta which states as under: -
"13.dk;ZdrkZvksa@lgkf;dkvksa dks in ls gVkus dh izfdz;k%& 13-1 fdlh vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds lanHkZ esa f'kdk;r izkIr gksus ij cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk lacaf/kr Ik;Zos{kd ls tkap djokdj Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11679 4 izfrosnu izkIr fd;k tk;sxk o izkIr izfrosnu esa xq.k nks"kksa dk ijh{k.k dj f'kdk;r lgh ik;s tkus ij ;fn fdlh izdkj dk xcu vFkok xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dk izdj.k curk gS rks lacaf/kr dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks ml ij ifjyf{kr gq, vkjksiksa ls Li"V voxr djkrs gq, viuk i{k j[kus dk volj iznku fd;s tkus gsrq iUnzg fnol dk le; iznku fd;k tkosxk ,oa mRrj izkIr gkssus ij iqu% xq.k nks"kksa dk ijh{k.k dj U;k;ksfpr fu.kZ; ysrs gq, ;fn in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vko';d gks rks in ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus laca/kh izLrko tkWp izfrosnu lfgr tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; dh ml lfefr ds le{k izLrqr fd;k tkosxk tks p;u ds fy;s l{ke gSA mDr lfefr ds vuqeksnu gksus ds mijkar eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r@vk;qDr uxj fuxe@eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh }kjk in ls i`Fkd djus ds vkns'k izlkfjr fd;s tkosaxsA 13-2 ;fn xcu vFkok xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dk izdj.k ifjyf{kr ugha gqvk gS ,oa ek= lkekU; ykijokfg;kW ifjyf{kr gqbZ gSa rks lacaf/kr cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk izFke nks ckj lacaf/kr dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks lpsr djrs gq, psrkouh tkjh dh tkosxh ,oa r`rh; ckj Hkh lq/kkj u vkus ij ml ij Li"V vkjksi vkjksfir djrs gq, lquokbZ dk vafre volj iznku fd;k tkosxk ,oa izkIr Li"Vhdj.k ij U;k;ksfpr :i ls fopkj djrs gq, ;fn in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vko';d gks rks rn~uqlkj mijksDr df.Mdk 13-1 vuqlkj tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; dks izLrko izLrqr dj lsok lekIr djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA ;fn xaHkhj dnkpkj@vfu;ferrk dh f'kdk;r gksus ij Hkh tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; dh p;u lfefr dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks in ls izFkd djus laca/kh izLrko izLrqr djus ds rhu lIrkg dh le;kof/k ds Hkhrj ikfjr ugha djrh gS ,oa ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh mDr dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks tufgr esa in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vko';d ekurs gSa rks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh izdj.k ewY;kadu lfefr ds le{k j[ksaxsA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh ds }kjk ewY;kadu lfefr ds izLrko ls ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu mijkar in ls i`Fkd fd;k tk ldsxkA 13-3 ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa vFkkZr ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh vFkok muls mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fujh{k.k ds nkSjku fLFkfr vlarks"ktud ik;s tkus ij ;fn muds foosd vuqlkj dk;ZdrkZ dks in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vko';d ik;k tkrk gS rks bl gsrq lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh vius fujh{k.k rFkk vfu;ferrkvksa dk foLr`r lqLi"V izfrosnu rS;kj dj in ls i`Fkd djus gsrq mYys[k djrs gq, eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r vkSj ;fn uxjh; {ks= Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11679 5 gS rks vk;qDr uxj fuxe@eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh dks izsf"kr dj nsaxs ,oa tuin iapk;r ,oa uxjh; fudk; }kjk df.Mdk 13-1 ,oa 13-2 vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA 13-4 in ls i`FkDdj.k ds vkns'k ds fo:) vihy dafMdk 11 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dh tk ldsxhA 13-5 ;fn dksbZ vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds yxkrkj ,d ekg ls vf/kd vof/k rd vuqifLFkr jgrh gS rks ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k ij Ik;Zos{kd ls ,d tkap izfrosnu izkIr dj dafMdk 13-1] 13-2 ds vuq:i lsok lekIr djus dh dk;Zokgh djsaxsA 13-6 vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dh lsok dh vf/kdre mez 62 o"kZ iw.kZ gksus ij ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh mUgsa ,d ekg iwoZ fyf[kr lwpuk nsdj lsok lekIr djus laca/kh vkns'k izlkfjr djsaxsA bl gsrq dafMdk 13-1] 13-2 ds vuq:i tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; dh p;u lfefr ls vuqeksnu ysus dh vko';drk ugha gksxhA Li"Vhdj.k%& mijksDrkuqlkj in ls i`Fkd djus dh izfdz;k esa ftl vH;FkhZ dh fu;qfDr ftl izfdz;k ls gqbZ gksxh mlh izfdz;k ls mlh izfdz;k ds rgr fofgr lfefr o vuqeksnu ds vuqlkj mls in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkosxk vFkkZr ;fn tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; ls p;u gqvk gS rks mlh fudk; ds ek/;e ls dafMdk 13-1 vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djrs gq, in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkosxk ,oa ftl vH;FkhZ dk p;u ewY;kadu lfefr rFkk ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu ls gqvk gksxk mls rn~uqlkj gh ewY;kadu lfefr o ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu ls in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkosxkA^^
6. Learned State counsel further submits that Clause 13.4 of the said aforesaid circular clearly says that against the order of removal an appeal can be filed as per Clause 11 of the circular. He has referred to Clause 11 of the circular which reads thus:-
11- vihy %& vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dkvksa dh fu;qfDr dh izfdz;k esa dh xbZ fu;qfDr ls lger u gksus ij vihy ds izko/kku bl izdkj gksaxs %& d- tuin iapk;r }kjk p;u @ fu;qfDr fd;s tkus ij p;u@ fu;qfDr vkns'k ds fo#) fofgr izfdz;k ds rgr vihy NRrhlx<+ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e 1993 ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr vf/kdkjh ds le{k dh tk ldsxhA Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11679 6 [k- NRrhlx<+ uxj ikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e 1956 ds varxZr xfBr uxj ikfydk fuxeksa esa fu;qDr fd;s x;s vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZvksa@ lgkf;dkvksa ds ekeyksa esa ftyk dysDVj dks vihy dh tkosxhA x- ftyk dysDVj ds vkns'k ds fo#) f}fr; vihy vk;qDr@lapkyd uxjh; iz'kklu ,oa fodkl dks dh tkosxhA ?k- NRRkhlx<+ uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e 1961 ds varxZr xfBr uxj ikfydk ifj'kn@ uxj iapk;r esa fu;qDr fd;s x;s vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZvksa@lgkf;dkvksa ds ekeys esa vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼ jktLo ½ dks vihy dh tkosxhA M+ vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼ jktLo ½ ds vkns'k ds fo#) ftyk dysDVj dks f}fr; vihy dh tkosxhA p- ;fn eqY;kadu lfefr }kjk p;u fd;k tkrk gS rks vihy ftyk dysDVj ds le{k dh tkosxhA Li"Vhdj.k %& pawfd bu funsZ'kksZ ds rgr d`r fu;qfDr;ksa ds fo#) vihy dk izko/kku fd;k x;k gS vr% f'kdk;krsa izkIr gksus ij lacaf/kr f'kdk;rdrkZ dks vihy dh izfdz;k dh foLr`r tkudkjh nh tkdj vihy djus dk lq>ko fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA^^
7. Learned State counsel also submits that in the Adhiniyam, 1993 the word 'Collector' has not been defined, however, said term was defined under Section 11 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the "Code, 1959"), whereby, word 'Collectors' includes 'Additional Collectors', though Section 11 was substituted by CG Act No.6 of 2022, w.e.f. 4.5.2022. He lastly submits that the order passed by the Additional Collector is valid order and he was competent to pass the impugned order.
8. Replying the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid issue came before this High Court in the matter of Sandeep Shukla Vs. State of CG and Ors 1, whereby, this Court has held that the Additional Collector could not have discharged the function of Prescribed Authority u/s 28 (2) of the Adhiniyam. He further submits that as per Section 91 of the Adhiniyam, an appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings 1 WPC No.1931/2011 decided on 12.07.2012 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11679 7 of a Panchayat and other authorities under this Act, shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed, and by invoking the delegation of powers under Section 93 of the Adhiniyam, the State Government may prescribe authorities against the order passed by the Janpad Panchayat to the Collector. Therefore, it is not permissible to enlarge the prescribe authorities as notified by the State Government.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record carefully.
10. Section 2 (xxi) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 defines the meaning of "Prescribed Authority" which reads thus:-
"2. Definitions - ** ** ** (xxi) "Prescribed Authority" in any provision of this Act means such officer or authority as the State Government may, by notification, direct to discharge the functions of a prescribed authority under that provision."
11. According to Section 91 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 an appeal or revision against the orders or proceedings of a Panchayat and other authorities under that Act shall lie to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed and the State Government has prescribed the Authority against the order passed by Janapad Panchayat to the Collector. Further, in view of ratio laid down in Sandeep Shukla (supra) as the State Government has conferred certain powers exclusively on Collector, so as per the maxim delegatus non potest delegare sub delegation of such power is not permissible.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11679 8
12. Apparently, in the instant case the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Collector on 07.09.2009 (Annexure-P/2), whereby, termination order of the petitioner was affirmed and consequently appeal was dismissed and against such an order revision has been filed which too dismissed by the Commissioner, Raipur on 04.12.2012 (Annexure-P/1). As from the aforesaid analysis, it is crystal clear that the impugned order dated 07.09.2009 has not been passed by the Competent Authority i.e. the Collector, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
13. Consequently, the Appellate order dated 07.09.2009 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Additional Collector and Revisional order dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Commissioner are quashed.
14. The matter be remitted back to the Collector, Balodabazar to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within outer limit of six months from the date of communication of this order.
15. The concerned parties shall appear before the Collector, Balodabazar on 02.05.2024.
16. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge