IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.14497 of 2010
1. FIKANI DEVI W/O BHABHI KHAN RAM R/O VILL.- MAHUA
BHUSHA, P.O.- LACHNAUTA, P.S.- GAUNAHA, DISTT.- WEST
CHAMPARAN
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH
3. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR
4. SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, PATNA, BIHAR
5. DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, PATNA, BIHAR
6. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, WEST CHAMPARAN,
BETTIAH
7. JUNIOR ENGINEER, GAUNAHA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
8. AJIT KUMAR JHA, THE THEN JUNIOR ENGINEER GAUNAHA,
DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN
9. JAFIR AHMAD S/O SHEIKH ABDUL HASAN R/O MAHUA
BHUSHA PANCHAYAT LACHNAUTA, P.S.- GAUNAHA, DISTT.-
WEST CHAMPARAN
10. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, WEST
CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH
11. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GAUNAHA, WEST
CHAMPARAN
-----------
2. 22.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the State.
The petitioner is stated to be the Mukhiya
of Gram Panchayat Raj, Lachnauta, Block- Gaunaha
District-West Champaran. She is aggrieved by the
final order dated 6.7.2010, passed by the Secretary,
Department of Panchayati Raj unseating her from
the post in exercise of powers under Section 18(5) of
the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter called
the ‘Act’).
It is not in controversy that a show cause
notice was issued to her, duly replied whereafter
2
final orders have been passed.
The law stands well settled that the Court
shall not sit as an appellate authority over the
decision of the respondents but shall primarily
examine the decision making process. The Court
finds no error in the decision making process.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
strenuously urged that the petitioner in her reply to
the show cause had taken a specific defence that co-
accused Zafir Ahmad had taken advantage of her
illiteracy and obtained her signature by deceit and
also forged her signature in collusion with the
contractor and other authorities for alleged
siphoning of funds of which she was not aware. This
has not been discussed and/or considered in the
final order. It is next submitted that the Secretary,
Department of Panchayati Raj has abdicated
statutory power by relying upon the comments of the
District Magistrate on the cause shown by the
petitioner. The absence of independent application of
mind by the Secretary therefore vitiates the order.
Once the petitioner acknowledged having
given certain signed documents to Zafir Ahmad, the
charge stands admitted. Thereafter, the question if
signatures were obtained by deceit or forgery being of
3
disputed question of facts, the Court finds no error
in the decision making process warranting any
interference. The defence of the petitioner raises
very serious disputed questions of fact which can
only be tested in a full fledged civil proceeding. In so
far as the provisions of Section 18(5) of the Act are
concerned, it provides for reasonable opportunity to
defend. That having been given, the Court does not
find substance in the submission that the Secretary
has acted at the dictates of the District Magistrate.
The final order displays due application of mind to
the allegation, the cause shown, the comments of the
District Magistrate upon the same to arrive at a final
conclusion.
The charge having been admitted by the
petitioner, her defence on disputed facts, in the
manner presented, cannot be examined in a writ
petition.
The writ application is dismissed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)