P.K. Mohanty, J.
1. The petitioner assails the order of his removal (Annexure-1) dated 12.9.1994 from the post of Secretary of Benagam Panchayat and prays for quashing the charges levelled against him or in the alternative to direct conclusion of the enquiry after following the Rules of natural justice. Prayer is made for quashing the order in Annexure-2.
2. The petitioner was working as the Secretary of Benagam Grama Panchayat under Boriguma Block of Koraput district. It is alleged that due to difference of opinion with the Sarapanch (Opp. party No. 8), he managed to get a resolution passed on 12.9.1994, initiating some vexatious allegations like, not opening the Panchayat Office for two years and the petitioner staying at a distance of 3 Kms. away from the Grama Panchayat and not discharging his duties sincerely. Opp. party No. 6 was requested to take charge of the office of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. A copy of the Resolution dated 12.9.1994 has been annexed as Annexure-1. According to the petitioner, the Resolution passed by the members of the Grama Panchayat is illegal, arbitrary and not in consonance with law and contrary to Rule 216(a) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act and Rules. It is further alleged that the order of removal is passed on 12.9.1994 without any definite charge having been communicated to the petitioner asking him to show cause nor he was given any opportunity to submit his explanation.
3. Soon after receipt of the letter, the petitioner requested the authorities to supply the statement of allegations and details of charges to enable him to submit the explanation, but without any justification the authorities concerned maintained stormy silence and did not allow the petitioner to work in the establishment nor supplied the required documents to submit his explanation. The petitioner preferred a statutory First Appeal before the Sub-collector, registered as G.P. Appeal No. 1 of 1994, but the appellate authority in an illegal and arbitrary manner, mechanically dismissed the appeal on 15.2.1995 confirming the order of removal, The petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 1 of 1995 before the Collector under Section 133(2) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, but the same was dismissed. According to the petitioner, the Second Appellate Authority introduced a new fact with regard to the alleged work order issued by the petitioner in favour of U.K. Panda and K. P. Panda without approval of the opp. party No. 8 which was not one of the charges levelled against him.
4. Opp. parties 2 to 7 have filed a joint counter affidavit refuting the allegations and denying the claim of the petitioner. According to these opp. parties, the petitioner had moved this Court earlier in O.J.C. No. 8800 of 1994, which was disposed of on 31.1.1995 to move the concerned appellate authority for interim protection. It is asserted that the members of the Grama Panchayat had brought several allegations against the petitioner in the Grama Panchayat meeting held on 12.9.1994 and hence, the Grama Panchayat proposed to remove the petitioner from service on the ground of misappropriation of Grama fund, non-opening of Grama Panchayat Office for a period of two years, non-participation in literacy programme, disobedience of the orders and refusal to carry out the functions and duties entrusted to him.
5. It is the stand of these opp. parties that in the meeting held on 12.9.1994, the Grama Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner from service and the resolution was forwarded to the opp. party No. 4 for approval. But on the plea that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of showing cause, the Opp. party No. 4 instead of approving the Resolution advised the Sarapanch (Opp. party No. 8) to ask the petitioner to submit explanation as to why he should not be removed from service for the lapses mentioned therein. But according to the Opp. party No. 8, he had called for the explanation from the petitioner on 5.9.1994, receipt of which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 6.9,1994. The copy of the Memo dated 5.9.1994 received by the petitioner on 6.9.1994 asking him to show cause has been annexed to the counter as Annexure-D. However, the petitioner kept quiet and did not submit any explanation. The Opp. parties gave another opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation in the next Grama Panchayat meeting scheduled to be held on 9.10.1994. The petitioner did not attend the meeting nor submit any explanation. The Benagam Grama Panchayat in its meeting held on 9.10.1994 had proposed to remove the petitioner on the ground of non-attending of the Grama Panchayat meeting, non-submission of the reply to the show cause dated 5.9.1994, issuing of work order directly under his signature to one Upendra Panda and K. Panda to execute the developmental work at an estimated cost of Rs. 10,000/- each without the knowledge of the Sarapanch, non-opening of the Grama Panchayat Office regularly, non-carrying of the duties and functions entrusted to him and showing misbehaviour to the Sarapanch and Ward Members of the Grama Panchayat and misappropriation of funds. The Grama Panchayat in its meeting on 9.10.1994 resolved to remove the petitioner from service and sent the resolution to opp. party No. 4 along with supporting materials for acceptance. The Opp. party No. 4 communicated its acceptance in his office letter No. 4768 dated 31.10.1994 under intimation to opp. party No. 6 for information. A copy of the Resolution of the Grama Panchayat dated 9.10.1994 has been annexed to the counter as Annexure-E. The petitioner was removed from service by Opp. party No. 8's letter No. 36 dated 24.11.1994, keeping the local Village Level Worker in charge of the Secretary as per the direction of Opp. party No. 6. It is, therefore, the contention that the petitioner was asked to show cause, but he had neither submitted his reply to the show cause nor attended the Grama Panchayat meeting held on 9.10.1994. It is, therefore, stated that the petitioner was removed by the Grama Panchayat vide Resolution dated 9.10.1994 and not by Resolution dated 12.9.1994, following due procedure of law and after giving due opportunity to submit his show cause.
6. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the moot question that needs consideration is, as to whether the petitioner who was working as the Secretary to Benagam Grama Panchayat has been removed from service without following due procedure of law and without any justifiable reason whatsoever. We had called for the relevant file which has been produced by the learned Standing Counsel for our perusal. The petitioner had annexed the resolution of the Grama Panchayat in its emergency meeting held on 12.9.1994 as Annexure-1. A perusal of the Resolution reveals that the petitioner is alleged to have not opened the Panchayat Office for two years and three months and was not attending the meeting of the Panchayat. The petitioner is also alleged to have remained away from the Literacy programme and misbehaving the members. Further allegation was that he has not rendered the accounts and misappropriated the funds collected towards Cart and Cycle taxes, weekly Hat collection, collections from sale of fish etc. from Panchayat tanks. The Panchayat being of the opinion that the condition of the Panchayat is deteriorating day by day and the Secretary is not attending the meeting, it was decided to remove the Secretary and requested the Block Development Officer to keep a V.L.W. to discharge the functions of the Secretary. It appears that on receipt of the Resolution of the Grama Panchayat to remove the petitioner from service, the Opp. party No. 4 without approving the Resolution directed the opp. party No. 8, the Sarapanch to ask for the show cause and thereafter to consider the same and take a final decision in the matter, since he was of the opinion that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to show cause.
7. It appears that before passing of the Resolution dated 12.9.1994, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice, a copy of which is Annexure-D, asking him to show cause why action shall not be taken against him for issuing the work orders for execution of the development work without authority, knowledge and consent of the Sarpanch and as to why he has made the financial transactions without the knowledge of the Sarpanch and misappropriated certain funds of the Grama Panchayat. The notice dated 5.9.1994 appears from Annexure-D to have been received by the petitioner on 6.9.1994, but admittedly, no explanation was submitted. The Grama Panchayat in its meeting held on 9.10.1994 considered the entire matter and on a detailed discussion reiterated its decision to remove the Secretary, the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner as revealed from the Resolution of the Grama Panchayat dated 9.10.1994 (Annexure-E) and discussed earlier are serious in nature but the petitioner in spite of the show cause and intimation to attend the Panchayat Meeting scheduled to be held on 9.10.1994 chose not to reply to the show cause notice nor even attended the meeting.
8. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been removed from service without following due procedure and even without following the principles of natural justice by issuing a show cause, is contrary to the materials on record and has to be rejected. The petitioner received and acknowledged the show cause in letter dated 5.9.1994 but did not choose to reply even pursuant to the second show cause and after even a direction to attend the Grama Panchayat meeting on 9.10.1994, he neither filed his show cause nor attended the meeting. In such situation and on the face of the serious and grave nature of charges, if fails to discharge the functions in accordance with law, does not open office and fails to attend meetings when directed, the decision of the Panchayat to remove him from service cannot be fautted. The petitioner also did not prosecute and attend the hearing of the appeal before the first appellate authority, the Sub-Collector, for which he, on consideration of the materials and report of the S.D.P.O., dismissed the appeal. The Collector, in the Second Appeal, has elaborately discussed the materials on record and on consideration having come to a conclusion that the allegations are not untrue, has dismissed the appeal.
9. The Scope of judicial review is not as an appeal from the decision of a public authority or a tribunal to examine its correctness on the merits, but a review of the manner in which that decision has been made, that is to ensure whether the decision making process has been fair and in consonance with the Rules of natural justice. Unless the Court finds that the orders impugned are contrary to law or that no reasonable man could come to such a conclusion or that the authority below the process has committed a procedural improbability in consistent with the Rules of natural justice or violation of statutory rules or was based on no material, in such event the High Court would be justified in interfering with such orders. The appellate authority has elaborately considered the materials on record and has recorded the findings. In such view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders or the order removing the petitioner from service.
10. Accordingly , the writ petition is dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be ho order as to costs.
L. Mohapatra, J.
11. I agree.