Judgment:
W.P.No.7266/2013 06/05/2013 Shri Sharad Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Challenging an interlocutory order dated 10.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner Rewa, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of the Panchayat in question.
A complaint with regard to preparation of false mustar roll and mis-appropriation of the money was made against the petitioner and, therefore, an enquiry committee consisting of four members namely, Secretary, Sub-Engineer, B.D.O and Assistant Engineer Janpad Panchayat Sohawal was constituted.
The enquiry committee submitted the enquiry report and based on the enquiry report, findings are recorded against the petitioner and the action was taken for removing the petitioner from the post in question and also debar the petitioner from participating in the election for six yeaRs.Challenging the aforesaid action, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector and the Collector, at the interlocutory stage itself, stayed the order of removal of the petitioner pending finalization of the appeal.
Aggrieved by the interim order passed, respondents approached the Commissioner in the revision and the Commissioner by the impugned order dated 10.4.2013 has stayed the interlocutory order passed by the Collector in the pending appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner, it is seen that the Commissioner has analyzed the entire matter and has found that as a detailed enquiry by a four member committee has been conducted and finding the misappropriation on the part of the petitioner to be established, thereafter, finding the petitioner to be involved in the act of certain misconduct which prevents her to hold the office, the action was taken to remove the petitioner from the post in question.
Accordingly, prima-facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the respondents, the order passed by the Collector has been stayed and in doing so, the Commissioner has not committed any error.
The principles for grant of injunction has been considered by the Commissioner in it's right prospective and action taken.
There is no error in the order passed by the Commissioner and, therefore, interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction in a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not called for.
However, the petitioner is only entitled for a early hearing of the appeal.
In view of the above, the Collector is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law after hearing all concerned within a period of two months.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd