STATE OF ORLSSA AND ANR. versus ALEKH CHANDRA JENA

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 07-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,.. ' 
ST A TE OF ORlSSA AND ANR. 
v. 
ALEKH CHANDRA JENA 
DECEMBER 7, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964: Section 115-Gram Pan-
chayat Sarpanch-Removal of-Order of Collector-Whether to be in 
a particular formilanguage. 
The respondent was a Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat. Conse-
quent 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. 15 !, 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 inhabi-
tants of the Grama. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: The language of sub-section (2) does not require a repe-
tition of the necessary satisfaction in the same language as referable to 
sub-section (1). Besides, the section cannot be interpreted to mandato-
rily lay down a rule for the authority concerned to express his conclu-
sion in relation to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein in 
a particular form using a particular set of words. [ JS!B I 
177 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
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 the instant case. [ J8!B-CI 
B 
The second appellant, while passing the order of suspension 
under sub-section (I) of s. 115, expressly stated that further conti-
nuance of the appellant in the office would be detrimental to the 
interest of the Gram Panchayat and the inhabitants of the Grama. The 
' .
'r 
State Government was of the opinion that the circumstances specified . J -
in sub-section (I) existed. In the order of removal, the State Govern- 4 _, 
C ment 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 
quashingtheimpugnedorders. [J80F-H; 181A,CI 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3966 
E 
F 
of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20. I. 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 I 15 
of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 by the order of the State 
Government (petitioner No. I before us) dated 24. 10.86. as con-
tained in Annexure-D to the special leave petition, which has been 
G quashed by the impugned judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 
20. I. 1987 in O.J.C. No. 3300/86. 
H 
The relevant provisions of section I 15 of the Act read as 
follows: 
"115( I). If on the report of the Sub-Divisional 
1 
... 
; 
\ 
~\ 
I 
STATE OF ORISSA v. A.C. JENA [SHARMA, J.l 
179 
Officer the Collector is of the opinion that circumstances 
A 
exist to show that the Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch of a 
Orama 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 privi-
leges vested in him or acts in a manner prejudicial to the 
interest of the inhabitants of the Orama and that the 
B 
further continuance of such p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.