Dismissed

Dr.s.zahiruddin v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Sept 2012WPS/3914/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bilaspur dismissed a writ petition assailing a show cause notice issued by the Collector as District Programme Coordinator under the MGNREGA Act. The court held the authority had jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdictional grounds.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to submit reply to the competent authority.

Dr.s.zahiruddin Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

•,\ cro/^-f'

¶3

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHAHISGARH) <^!ftiiijiicj^©^©i'idiii '23'Lf WRIT PETITION (S) N0. OF 2012 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2260£THE^QNSTITUT!ONOF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THENATUREOFCERIIQRARI IVIANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

PETITIONER Dr. S. Zahiruddin, ^S.SW.^^^^SIo Shri Hazi-.Rahmuddin, aged about 54 ^.^•---^1^.^-^'t^'~~"'"'" •-—;•-•••-;-•;' ,itedbySW-f-^,"i^^^i^^.years, posted as Assistant veterinary "" .date Surgeon cum Project Officer, Mili Water Shad under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Block Bakawand, Distriet - Bastar

¶6

(Chhattisgarh)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RESPONDENTS 1.' State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Animal Husbandry D.K. S. Bhawan Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K. S. Bhawan Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) 3';The Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Vikas Bhawan Civil Line Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4. The Director Animal Husbandry (veterinary) Mahasamund Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

:itiiE-l^a1.iw.iii; li.il

¶10

N0111134 3H1 JO S11V13Q (LijeBsifleqqo) je}seg - puisiQ 'jnd|ep6ep 'JSOIUQ ..^ (snueAey) leuoisiMQ qns 941 'L (4je6s!neqL]o) je)seg - puisia 'jnd|ep6ef' leAeLjoued B|!Z 'JSOUJO 8A!ino9X3 ^iqo e^i^-' '9 (4je6s!l}eq43) jeiseg - puisia 'jnd|ep6er 'joieuipJOOQ •s LuiuejBo^d puisiQ aino jop9||oo oqi _ ^T.

^••s^^^ ^ '^^i^^

HIGH^QUKT QF CHHATTISQARH : BILASPIXR

¶15

8IKGI.E BBWCH :HOn'BLB SHRI MAMINDRA MOIVfll^IMVASTAVAtfJ.

¶16

Wrlt Petitloa 16} N0.3914/2012

PBTITIONER

Dr. S. Zaluruddin

Versus

RESPONMiNTS State ofChIiatttegarh and Ois.

¶21

Appesu'ance:

¶22

ShriSandeep Dubey, coimscl for fhe petitfoner.

¶23

Shri Y.S.-Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for tfae State, on advance

copy.

ORAL-ORDBR

(Passed on 7.9.2012)

Heard.

By this pctidon, fhe petitioncr sceks to assail the corDectness and • vaUdity offhe show-cause notice dated 31;8.%)12.

¶29

Leai-aed counsel for fhe petitioner contends that thc Disaplmaiy Authority of fhe petidoner is fh.e Director, Veterinaiy Senaces, State of CIthattisgaA, but, the napugned show cause notice has bcen issued by fhe OoUector on 31.8.2012, usurping the power of Discipliuay Authority, which is wlfhout jiuisdiction. The next sutomission fe fhat vide memo dated 29.5.2012 (Annexure P-3) ofthe office ofDeveIopmeat Comaussioner, the Collector was asked to submit report. Thereafter, the Colkctor/District Prograiame Coordinator directed tfae CIiief Executive Officer, Jila Pauchayat to ho]d inquiry, wfao, ia tum, got aa iaquuy iaade,-ia which, BO irregularily was foimd and ttw report was forwarded by the Chief Executwe Officer, Jila Panchayat vide memo dated 20th JUDK, 2012 (Aiiaexure P-5) wltti copy cndorsed to (he

¶30

--2-

¶31

Collector, but, even fhen, fhe Coltector has ncw fesued a show caise notice'to the petltioacr on the basis ofa report ofSub Dinsional Offeer in respect of the same couiplaiat. Therefore, impugacd show cause notice is liable to be set aside and no niquny can be aUcwed at the iastance ofttie CoUector.

¶32

On fhe last date of hearfng, leamed counsel for fhe Stettc was grauted tuue to seek clarifieation as to whether by itapugaed shaw cause notice, CoIlector/District Prograimne Goordinator seeks to aBsuiae power of disciplinary authorily and if so, under what provision of law.

¶33

•- Shri Thakur, learued Dy, Advocate Qeneral for fhe State, aubmits that the show cause notice has been issued by'flie CoUector ja lus capacity as Distdct Programnie Coordinator under the statutory schenie of fhe Mahatina Gaadhi National Riual Einployment Cruaisantee Act, 2005 (ft>r short "fhe Act of 2005*). Under Section 36 (e) aud (^, the Dista-ict Programiae Coordinator is entifled to iaquire into conaplaint and take necessaiy steps which may lacludc lodging (rf F1R and/or to impose penally under fhe pnwision of Scctiaa 25 of the Act. He categoricaUy submits that fhe show cause noflce is not urtended to mitiate aay deparfanental iuquiiy in fhe c^)actty as a statutoiy aufhorBy under the

¶34

The submissions of leamed coimsel for the petitioner that tfae shcw cause notice is without jurisdiction is maiuly toased on fhe coiitents of show cause notice which refer to fhe C.G. Civil Serrice (Gonduclj Rutes, 1965. From fhis, learaed counsel for fhe petitioacr uiys ffaiis Ctturt to

¶35

draw inference that prescat is discipUnaiy iaq'auy ia the capacKy sis -

¶36

the Disciplmaiy Authority uaderfhe service rules.

¶37

In view offhe categoric submtesioits made befi>re this Cowrt ty learued Dy. Advocate Qeneral ,which shatl be tteated as statement made on

¶38

• behalf of respondent No.5 CoUector ciua Distrtet Prograame Coordiaator, Jagdalpur, fhe apprehension, If any ia the miad of fhe petitionep is clearly dispeUed. Qvite obviously, the previston ofthe Act of 2005,as referred to above, empower fhe CoUector in lus capacity as

¶39

Distaact Programme Coordmator to iaquire into coinplaiat and take steps. Therefore, the show cause notice does aot appear to be without

¶40

jurisdiction.

¶41

-3-

¶42

The other subcatesion wlth regard to inquny xuade purauant to the order of fhe ComiBissioner by ttus Chief Executivc Offloer of Jflta Panchayat is concemed, it appears fhat the Comxiussioner has also obtained a report fhrough fhe CoUector and Chief Executive Officer o£ Jfla Paachayat. However, fhe petitioncr could not place any iBatcrial on record to show that fhe Coiamissioner has passed aay oider ia the laatter. Iffhe Conunlssioner has not passed aay order, iu fhe absegice of any ofh.er provision ia the Act of QOQB, proldbitiag fhe CoUector/Distaict Piogramine Coordinator to take actton, it cannot be said fhat the Coltector cannot proceed wifti an mquiiy into the coiaplaiat Eegardiag irregularily aUeged against fhe petitioncr.

¶43

In fhe absence of ftiere beiag any ground of'want of junsdiction ®r malafide having been made out fixim fhc petition, I aia not tncliacd-to mterfere with fhe show cause notice issued by tfae Cofflccter/District Progranune Cooidinator.

¶44

The petitioner woirid be at liberty to subxnit his reply before tlie coacemed autborrty, who shaU decide tfae case as a Authority uader fhe provisions offhe Act of2003.

¶45

With fhe aforesald observations, the petition fe dismissed.

¶46

S\rft was,^a

¶47

^ss^°" 3ttA?>e

¶48

Dr.s.zahiruddin v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.s.zahiruddin v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Rawat Vs State of M.P. and Ors.

Neelesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

B.p. Sahu Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Mandal Prabandhak New India Insu.Comp. Vs Injor Das and Others

Dilip Kumar Gupta Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

V.s.deewan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.