http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ALEKH CHANDRAJENA

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1987

BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1988 SCR  (2) 177        1988 SCC  Supl.  469  JT 1987 (4)   657        1987 SCALE  (2)1416

ACT:      Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964: Section 115-Gram Panchayat Sarpanch-Removal  of-order of Collector-Whether to be in a particular form/language.

HEADNOTE: %      The respondent  was a  Sarpanch of  a  Gram  Panchayat. Consequent upon a report made by the Sub-Divisional officer, against the  respondent stating  the facts and circumstances which satisfied  the conditions  mentioned in  s. 115 of the orissa Gram  Panchayat Act,  1964  for  his  suspension  and removal, the  second appellant,  by his order dated 22.4.85, suspended the  respondent. A  notice, as  required  by  sub- section (2)  of s. 151, was served on the Sarpanch who filed his detailed  reply and  was also  personally heard.  As the explanation was  not considered satisfactory, an order dated 24.10.86 removing  him from  the office  of the Sarpanch was passed, in  which it  was  mentioned  that  the  appellant’s further continuance  in office  would be  detrimental to the interest of the Gram Panchayat as also of the inhabitants of the Grama.  A second  notification dated 24.10.86 under sub- section (4) was also passed.      The Sarpanch  challenged the above notifications before the High  Court. The High Court quashed the notifications on the sole  and simple  ground that  the order did not satisfy one of  the mandatory  requirements,  i.e.  the  appellant’s further continuance  in the  office would  be detrimental to the interest  of the  Gram Panchayat  or inhabitants  of the Grama.      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD: The  language of sub-section (2) does not require a repetition  of the  necessary  satisfaction  in  the  same language as  referable  to  sub-section  (1).  Besides,  the section cannot be interpreted to mandatorily lay down a rule for the  authority concerned  to express  his conclusion  in relation to  the  fulfilment  of  the  conditions  mentioned therein in  a particular  form using  a  particular  set  of words. [181B] 178      What is contemplated by the section is the formation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

an  opinion   in  this  regard  after  giving  a  reasonable opportunity  to   the  Sarpanch  in  question  to  meet  the allegations suggested  and to  announce  the  conclusion  in unambiguous and express terms. All that has been done in the instant case. 1 [181B-C]      The  second  appellant,  while  passing  the  order  of suspension under sub-section (l) of s. 115, expressly stated that further  continuance of  the appellant  in  the  office would be  detrimental to  the interest of the Gram Panchayat and the  inhabitants of  the Grama. The State Government was of the  opinion that  the circumstances  specified  in  sub- section (1)  existed. In  the order  of removal,  the  State Government after mentioning the allegations, stated that the explanation of  the Sarpanch  was not acceptable and he was, therefore, being  removed from  the office.  The allegations made against  him thus  were accepted  as correct.  The High Court was, therefore, not justified in quashing the impugned orders.[180-H; 181A,C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 1987.       From  the Judgment  and Order  dated 20.1.1987  of the High Court of Orissa of O.J.C. No. 3300 of 1986.      A.K. Panda for the Appellant.      J.R. Das for the Respondent      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by       SHARMA, J. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.      The respondent  A.C. Jena  was a  Sarpanch of Padanipal Grama Panchayat,  Orissa. He  was removed  from  the  office under section 115 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 by the order  of the  State Government (petitioner No. I before us) dated  24.10.86,  as  contained  in  Annexure-D  to  the special leave  petition,  which  has  been  quashed  by  the impugned judgment  of the  Orissa High Court dated 20.1.1987 in o.J.c No. 330()/86.      The relevant  provisions of section 115 of the Act read as follows:                "115(1).  If   on  the  report  of  the  Sub-           Divisional 179                Officer the  Collector is of the opinion that           circumstances exist  to show  that the Sarpanch or           Naib-Sarpanch of  a Grama Panchayat wilfully omits           or refuses to carry out or violates the provisions           of  this   Act,  or   the  rules  or  orders  made           thereunder  or   abuses  the  powers,  rights  and           privileges vested  in him  or  acts  in  a  manner           prejudicial to  the interest of the inhabitants of           the Grama and that the further continuance of such           person in  office  would  be  detrimental  to  the           interest of the Grama Panchayat or the inhabitants           of the  Grama,  he  may,  by  order,  suspend  the           Sarpanch or  Naib-Sarpanch, as  the case  may  be,           from office  and report  the matter  to the  State           Government.                (2) The  State Government,  on the  report of           the Collector  under sub-S.  (1)-shall, or  if the           State Government  themselves are  of  the  opinion           that the  circumstances specified in the said sub-           section exist  in relation  to a Sarpanch or Naib-           Sarpanch, then  on their  own motion,  may,  after           giving   the   person   concerned   a   reasonable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

         opportunity of  showing cause, remove him from the           office of  Sarpanch or  Naib-Sarpanch, as the case           may be.                (3)......................................                .........................................                (4) A  Sarpanch or  Naib-Sarpanch on  removal           from office  under sub-S.  (2) shall also cease to           be a  member of  the  Grama  Panchayat,  and  such           person shall  not be  eligible for  election as  a           member for  a period  not exceeding  four years as           the State Government may specify.                (5)......................................                ......................................... The  Collector,   Cuttack,  petitioner  No.  2,  before  us, received a  report (Appendix  to Annexure  A) from  the Sub- Divisional officer,  Kendra  Pada,  stating  the  facts  and circumstances which clearly satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 115 of the Act, for the suspension and removal of the respondent.  The Collector, Cuttack, thereupon suspended the Sarpanch  by his  order dated 24.4.1985 (Annexure-A) and while so  doing he expressly mentioned that on going through the 180 report of  the Sub-divisional  officer he was satisfied that the Sarpanch  acted in  a manner as detailed in the Appendix and "his  further continuance in office would be detrimental to the  interest of  the said Grama Panchayat as also of the inhabitants of  the Grama." Accordingly a notice as required by sub-section (2) was served on the Sarpanch, who filed his detailed  reply   and  was   also  personally   heard.   His explanation however  was not  considered satisfactory and an order dated  24.10.1986  bearing  No.  19032/GP  was  passed removing him  from the  office of  the  Sarpanch.  A  second notification of  the same  date  bearing  No.  19039/GP  was issued  under   sub-section  (4).   The  Sarpanch  in  these circumstances moved  the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.      The High  Court at  the stage  of admission  by a short order quashed the notification issued against the petitioner "on the  sole and  simple ground  that the  order  does  not specify one of the mandatory requirements, i.e., his further continuance in  the  office  would  be  detrimental  to  the interest of  the Gram  Panchayat or  the inhabitants  of the Gram". Elaborating  the point  the High  Court  observed  as follows:           "....One of  the circumstances  mentioned in  sub-           section (  I) is  just  indicated  above.  As  the           existence of  the circumstances  mentioned in sub-           section (1)  is condition precedent for passing an           order of  removal by  the  State  Government,  its           absence makes the order wholly illegal and without           jurisdiction . ., .".       As  has been  stated  earlier,  the  Collector,  while passing the  order of  suspension under  sub-section (1)  of section 115 expressly stated that the further continuance of the  petitioner  in  office  would  be  detrimental  to  the interest of  the Grama  Panchayat and the inhabitants of the Grama. He  relied  upon  the  report  of  the  Subdivisional officer mentioning  serious allegations against the Sarpanch which undoubtedly,  if true,  satisfied the  conditions  for exercise of  the power.  Since it  has  not  been  suggested before us otherwise, we do not consider it necessary to deal with  them  except  mentioning  that  besides  many  serious allegations,  the   report  also  said  that  certain  money belonging to  the Grama Panchayat which had been received at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

an auction  was not  deposited. In the order of removal, the State Government  after mentioning  the  allegations  stated that the  explanation of the Sarpanch was not acceptable and he was,  therefore,  being  removed  from  the  office.  The allegations made against him, 181 thus were  accepted as  correct. In  other words  the  State Government  was   of  the  opinion  that  the  circumstances specified in  sub-section (  I) existed.  It will-be noticed that the  language of  sub-section (2)  does not  require  a repetition  of   the  necessary  satisfaction  in  the  same language as  referable  to  sub-section  (1).  Besides,  the section cannot be interpreted to mandatorily lay down a rule for the  authority concerned  to express  his conclusion  in relation to  the  fulfilment  of  the  conditions  mentioned therein in  a particular  form using  a  particular  set  of words. What  is contemplated by the section is the formation of an  opinion in  this regard  after  giving  a  reasonable opportunity  to   the  sarpanch  in  question  to  meet  the allegations suggested  and to  announce  the  conclusion  in unambiguous and  express terms.  All that  has been  done in this case.  We do  not. therefore,  see any justification in the High Court quashing the orders impugned before it.      Accordingly  the   appeal  is   allowed,  High  Court’s judgment is  set aside and the writ application filed before the High Court is dismissed. N.P.V.                                       Appeal allowed. 182