2005 (11) TMI 469 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether pre-requisites for taking such action under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 were not satisfied and, therefore, the order of Collector, Jajpur, dated 3.6.2003 directing suspension of the respondent was illegal?

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the suspension order under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964.
2. Whether the acts of the respondent were "wilful."
3. Procedural fairness in the inquiry process.
4. Interpretation and application of Section 115 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the suspension order under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964:
The High Court held that the pre-requisites for taking action under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, were not satisfied, rendering the Collector's order dated 3.6.2003 directing the suspension of the respondent illegal. The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Sanatan Jena v. Collector, Balasore and Anr., emphasizing that suspension of an elected representative is a drastic action and should not be taken cursorily or mechanically. The High Court concluded that the report of the Sub-Collector did not satisfy the pre-requisite conditions stipulated under Section 115(1) of the Act.

2. Whether the acts of the respondent were "wilful":
The Supreme Court noted that for Section 115(1) to apply, the acts complained of must have been done wilfully by the Sarpanch. The Collector's order categorically stated that the respondent had wilfully abused his powers, rights, and privileges and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the inhabitants of the Grama. The Sub-Collector's report indicated that the respondent had collected illegal gratification from poor beneficiaries and cheated them, which the Collector deemed as wilful acts. The term "wilful" was interpreted to mean intentional, deliberate, and conscious acts, excluding casual, accidental, or bona fide actions.

3. Procedural fairness in the inquiry process:
The respondent argued that he was not granted an opportunity to present his case before the inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Collector. The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 115(1), there is no requirement to grant an opportunity to the concerned Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch at the stage of suspension. The opportunity to show cause is mandated only at the stage of removal under sub-section (2) of Section 115. The Court emphasized that the Collector's opinion at the stage of suspension is a prima facie view based on the materials before him, and courts should not interfere unless there is a total absence of material or non-application of mind.

4. Interpretation and application of Section 115 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964:
The Supreme Court analyzed the scheme of Section 115, which allows the Collector to take action based on an inquiry or inspection made by him or on the report of the Sub-Collector. The Collector must form an opinion that the Sarpanch has wilfully violated the provisions of the Act or abused his powers, and that his continuance in office would be detrimental to the Grama Panchayat. The Court criticized the High Court for not discussing the factual aspects and relying solely on precedent without considering the specific circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court underscored that a decision is a precedent on its own facts and should be analyzed for its ratio decidendi.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment indefensible, set it aside, and allowed the appeal. The Court did not express an opinion on the merits of the case concerning action under sub-section (2) of Section 115, which is to be adjudicated by the State Government. The respondent's counsel was advised that any prayer to revoke the suspension under sub-section (3a) of Section 115 should be considered in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →