Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The facts of this case are that the petitioner Chhunku @ Bhishm was appointed on 29.05.1993 (Annexure P-3) as a permanent Kotwar at village Kosamkunda, Tahsil Bilaigarh in exercise of power under Section 230, Rule 4 (2) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 by the Naib Tahsildar, Bilaigarh. Subsequently, certain enquiry was started against the petitioner and by an order of the Tahsildar dated 28.06.1994 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was removed from service and one Bodhiram was appointed as Kotwar in his place. The primary removal was on the ground that a case under Section 107 and 116 of Cr.PC, an Istagasa was filed against the petitioner. The allegation was further that the earlier Kotwar Budhram has made exchange of his service land with one Sattu for Rs. 40,000/- and the petitioner was a witness to such agreement. The order of removal was subject of challenge before the SDO, Balaigarh and the SDO, Bilaigarh by order dated 19.01.1999 (Annexure P-5) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, as it was delayed by four years as the appeal was filed on 16.03.1998. The said order of the SDO was subject of challenge before the Upper Collector in the second appeal and the Upper Collector, Baloda Bazar too by order dated 04.10.2006 (Annexure P-6) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the original claim of reinstatement is barred by time. The said order was further subject of challenge before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 24.01.2008 (Annexure P-7) observed that in place of petitioner one Bodhiram was appointed since the subsequent Kotwar has died, therefore, the cause of action itself has come to an end and dismissed the revision of the petitioner. The said review petition was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue passed the order dated 29.09.2015 (Annexure P-1) after hearing the petitioner and gave a finding that the earlier order passed by the Board of Revenue in revision was not on the merits. It further observed that the issue was with respect to the legality of the appointment of subsequent Kotwar Bodhiram to the post for which petitioner Chhunku @ Bhishm was also a candidate and if held that the revision would have allowed, the petitioner would have been appointed; therefore, allowed the review petition thereby the ground of delay for dismissal was condoned with respect to the appointment of petitioner it held that though the case was registered against applicant under Section 107 and 116 of Cr.PC, an Istagasa was filed against the petitioner and mere filing of Istagasa under Section 107 and 116 of Cr.PC cannot be treated that the petitioner is of a bad character. The reliance was placed on 1993.R.N.293 and it was observed that the pendency of a case under Section 107 and 116 of Cr.PC would not come into way of the petitioner which warrants dismissal. With respect to the academic qualification, the Board of Revenue believed in the certificate issued by Panchayat in favour of petitioner and held in the certificate Chhunku @ Bhishm was named as Bhishmlal there by validity of educational certificate was held in favour of petitioner. Furthermore, with respect to exchange of service land along with Sattu for Rs. 40,000/- it was observed that it was against the Budhram, the father of the petitioner and petitioner (Chhunku) was only the witness. Consequently, the disqualification for appointment as Kotwar was not held to be attached with the petitioner. Eventually, it was held that the appointment of petitioner was proper. Further it held that however the order of the Tahsildar and thereafter the Upper Collector to dismiss the petition was proper. The Board of Revenue thereby reviewed its earlier order and held that since the subsequent appointed Kotwar Bodhiram has died and Ganeshram was working as temporary Kotwar, it directed to appoint regular Kotwar, by a cut off date.

2. The record Annexure P-2 would show that after the order of Board of Revenue was passed on 29.09.2015, a fresh order was issued in favour of Ganesh Ram and he was appointed as Kotwar .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Kotwar no opportunity of hearing or any enquiry was conducted, therefore, the order itself bad in law. It is submitted that the principal of natural justice too was not followed by the Respondent and he would submit that though irrespective of the fact that Ganesh Ram (Respondent No. 2) has been appointed, the petitioner too can also be appointed as Kotwar as one or more Kotwar can be appointed for the same village as per Section 230 of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1950.

7. The relevant Section 230 of LRC 1959 speaks about appointment of Kotwar which reads as under:-

230. Appointment of Kotwars and their duties.-- (1) For each village or group of villages, there shall be appointed, in accordance with rules made under Section 258, one or more kotwars for the performance of such duties as may be prescribed :
Provided that in the Madhya Bharat region the duties of kotwars under this section shall be performed by the Police Chowkidars who shall, on the coming into force of this Code, be deemed to be Kotwars under this section, and be subject in all respects to the control of Revenue Officers.
(2) Action should be taken on reports made by the Police against Kotwars and result thereof be intimated to the police forthwith.
6

6. The appointing authority may terminate the services of a Kotwar whenever, owing to age or to mental or physical infirmity, he is no longer fit to perform the duties of the post.

10. Reading the aforesaid rules would show that the appointing authority may fine, suspend or dismiss a Kotwar for the reasons stated in Sub Section 1 and 2.The said rule has to be read along with the principles of natural justice which is implicit as embedded and it cannot be implemented in isolation without reading parallel principle of natural justice of audi alteram partem. It is a settled proposition as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. V. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4072) that no order of adverse to an individual be passed without following the principles of natural justice. The order of the Tahsildar removing the petitioner by Annexure P-4 on 28.06.1994 do not substantiate the petitioner was given due hearing before removal. The reply of the State too also is silent as to whether the principle of natural justice were followed before such termination was effected. Subsequent order when was subject of challenge before the SDO and Upper Collector, all the authorities failed to take into account of the fact that before the removal of petitioner from a particular post which has a civil consequence, opportunity of hearing was given to him. Therefore, if illegality has come to fore and has come to the notice of this Court that cannot be allowed to be perpetuated, more so the part of condonation of delay has been dealt by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 29.09.2015, and condoned the delay however, without further discussion of legality of order by Tahsildar & Additional Collector has affirm the order of dismissal of petitioner only on the ground that new Kotwar has been appointed.