Mamata Manjari Sethi Vs Collector Kendrapara

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned decision of opposite party No.1 as at Annexure-10 by order dated 27^th January, 2025 in G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 on the grounds inter alia that the same is not legally tenable and hence, is liable to be interfered with and set at naught on the grounds inter alia that the principles of natural justice have not been followed.

¶12

2. The petitioners are the elected Ward Members of Belpal GP under Rajnagar Panchayat Samiti in the district of Kendrapara and have questioned the action and decision of

¶13

Page 1 of 25

¶14

opposite party No.1 in entertaining the application under Section 26 of the Odisha Grams Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) initiated at the behest of opposite party No.2, namely, Sarpanch of the GP as against whom vote of no confidence was proposed. It is pleaded on record by the petitioners that opposite party No.2 filed such an application alleging them to be disqualified for having not attended three consecutive meetings of the GP in view of Section 25(2)(b) of the Act and it was entertained by opposite party No.1 without adhering to the procedure prescribed thereunder and exercised jurisdiction most arbitrarily without any enquiry held as contemplated under law and finally passed the impugned order at Annexure-10 with the conclusion that all stand disqualified for having not attended the required number of meetings convened and held during a period of four months. It is pleaded on record that opposite party No.1 during and in course of hearing under Section 26 of the Act in G.P. Appeal Nos.2, 3 & 4 of 2024 illegally stayed the no confidence motion proposed against opposite party No.2, which was in excess of jurisdiction conferred on him and such decision was interfered with by this Court in W.P.(C) No.26251 of 2024 by order dated 14^th November, 2024 concluding that any such proceeding is independent of an action under Section 26 of the Act. According to the petitioners, after disposal of G.P. Appeal Nos.2 and 3 of 2024, opposite party No.1 without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and in utter disregard to the Court’s order dated 21^st January, 2025

¶15

Page 2 of 25

¶16

in W.P.(C) No.1944 of 2025 proceeded to dispose of G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 and declared the petitioners disqualified under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act.

¶17

3. The petitioners have been elected in the year 2022 and their tenure is to continue till March, 2027, however, it has been intervened by the orders in G.P. Appeal Nos.2, 3 & 4 of 2024. In fact, in G.P. Appeal Nos.2 & 3 of 2024, two of the Ward Members, who are the requisitionists for the vote of no confidence have been declared disqualified for having more than two children born after the cut-off date in view of Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. Such disqualification of both the Ward Members, namely, petitioner Nos.5 & 7 under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act is under challenge at present along with others with the allegation that they have not attended the meetings dated 29^th June, 2024, 22^nd July, 2024 and 29^th August, 2024. The decision of opposite party No.1 in G.P. Appeal Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 is not the subject matter herein. The impugned order at Annexure-10 relates to G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 for having declared the petitioners disqualified under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act. According to the petitioners, such proceeding has been initiated to frustrate the no confidence motion moved against opposite party No.2 and it was hastily disposed of by opposite party No.1 without conducting proper enquiry and providing an opportunity to respond and defend the same. It has been the claim of the petitioners that a preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the proceeding on 27^th November, 2024 with a request to opposite party No.1 to

¶18

Page 3 of 25

¶19

cause production of the Attendance Register both online and offline in respect of the meetings held between 5^th February, 2024 and 29^th August, 2024 and also to call for the original documents received from the PEO dated 29^th August, 2024 and further demanded summons to the officials for the purpose of confronting them the factual report prepared by the then BDO but without considering the same in proper perspective, it was followed by Annexure-10. The petitioners claimed that the report of the Ex-BDO prepared after an enquiry which reveals that the relevant record was collected from the PEO and Sarpanch of the GP including a copy of the attendance sheet vis-à-vis Meeting Nos.30, 31, 32 and 33 held during the period under consideration and the same revealed that most of the Ward Members were not noticed and even then, many of them attended the meetings and therefore, any such decision taken by opposite party No.1 without receiving evidence in that regard with the confrontation to the concerned BDO, the impugned order at Annexure-10 cannot be sustained in law. It is further pleaded that the Ex-BDO collected the attendance report of e-Gram Sabha and the same proved that the petitioners had attended the meetings but some of them failed to sign the resolution passed in Meeting Nos.30 and 32 but signed in other proceeding i.e. Meeting No.31. It is contended that prior to any such report of the BDO, petitioner No.2 had obtained all the relevant records under the RTI Act and the same proved otherwise and revealed the attendance of the petitioners in such meetings. It has been alleged that G.P.

¶20

Page 4 of 25

¶21

Appeal Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 were proceeded with and petitioner Nos.5 & 7 were accordingly declared disqualified under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act and in so far as G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 is concerned, opposite party No.1 without considering the objection and all such applications moved at Annexure-3 series and complying the orders of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1944 of 2025 dated 21^st January, 2025 hurriedly disposed of the same vide Annexure-10 and hence, therefore, such a decision without a detailed enquiry ignoring the factual report of the Ex-BDO and further investigation into the tampering of the record noticed in course of hearing upon examination of the same declaring the petitioners as disqualified on the premise that the record has been manipulated is an erroneous conclusion, as a result of which, the elected members of the GP stood disqualified under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the same is vitiated for having not conducted threadbare enquiry and, hence, the impugned order at Annexure-10 deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.

¶22

4. On the contrary, opposite party No.1 filed the counter affidavit and it has been pleaded therein that the petitioners invited disqualification under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act since there has been revelation during enquiry about their absence in the meetings held on the dates fixed and as such, no any wrong or illegality has been committed with the decision as per Annexure-10. It is pleaded that in compliance of the Court’s order in W.P.(C) No.1944 of 2025, reasonable opportunity was provided and all such Page 5 of 25

¶23

relevant documents were made available to the petitioners, who properly defended the proceeding and therefore, the allegation that there has been disobedience of the direction of this Court dated 21^st January, 2025 issued therein is to be outrightly false and not backed by facts and materials on record. The further pleading is that the report of the BDO, Rajnagar, namely, opposite party No.3 was received and it revealed that the meetings were held on the dates fixed and notices for the said purpose were served on all the Ward Members of the GP through online and offline but in spite of such notices received, the petitioners did not attend the same and in such view of the matter, invited disqualification under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act for having failed to attend three consecutive meetings within a period of four months’ time. The claim of the petitioners with reference to RTI information furnished by Ex-PEO is that the Resolution Register has been tampered with compared to the original received from opposite party No.3 and it was accomplished with malafide intention and therefore, the same needs investigation under the provisions of Records Manual, 1964. According to opposite party No.1, during the proceeding, the Ex-PEO was examined and cross-examined on the dates i.e. 25^th January, 2025 and 27^th January, 2025 and the ExBDO was transferred, hence, he could not attend the proceeding as he was preoccupied with administrative works being posted at Pallahara Block in the district of Angul, however, clarified and duly intimated by a letter i.e. Annexure-A/1 series that he enquired about the matter

¶24

Page 6 of 25

¶25

through GPDO, Rajnagar and it was based on the available records referring to which such a report was submitted by him to contend that all such aspects have been fully examined and verified and therefore, the decision as per Annexure-10 is perfectly justified and cannot be challenged for non-examination of the Ex-BDO. It is also pleaded that the proceeding had 12 hearings stretched over a period of four months and all such records were examined and verified in the immediate presence of officials on the request of both the sides and ultimately, G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 was disposed of on 27^th January, 2024. Referring to Section 26 of the Act, it is lastly pleaded that opposite party No.1 has the jurisdiction to initiate an action thereunder either suo motu or upon an application received to conduct an enquiry regarding disqualification of a member of the GP and to take a decision thereon which shall be final and conclusive. The contention is that the proceeding is a quasi-judicial action and opposite party No.1, upon receiving all such evidence with the enquiry held and reports received, rightly held disqualification of the petitioners under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act and hence, the impugned decision under Annexure-10 does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

¶26

5. Opposite party No.2 filed a counter and pleaded that G.P. Appeal Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 are not under challenge, whereas, in G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024, due procedure has been followed by opposite party No.1 and hence, the decision under challenge is not indefensible having been arrived at after an enquiry held and concluded as per Section 26 of the

¶27

Page 7 of 25

¶28

Act. Furthermore, it is pleaded that the information received under the RTI Act by the petitioners is based on a document tampered with while in the custody of the Ex-PEO of the GP, hence, it could not have been entertained and rightly, therefore, considering the report of opposite party No.3, the disqualification of the petitioners has been directed.

¶29

6. Gone through the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners to the counter of opposite party No.1 and it has been pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 arbitrarily proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure-10 consequent upon this Court’s order in W.P.(C) No.26251 of 2024 in relation to no confidence motion moved against opposite party No.2, who stands disqualified followed by Annexure-11. It is further pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 had not given ample opportunity to the petitioners and such claim is contrary to the record and furthermore, there has been noncompliance of the order dated 21^st January, 2025 in W.P.(C) No.1944 of 2025. It is reiterated and also pleaded further that the application of the petitioners dated 27^th November, 2024 was not duly considered by opposite party No.1 as it was to call for certain documents as per Annexure-3 series so as to confront it to the Ex-BDO to prove the fact about them to have attended Meeting Nos. 30 to 33 having signed the Attendance Register maintained in e-Panchayat Register and not only that, the request to call for both online and offline Register of the GP was not obliged despite a complaint of the PEO dated 29^th August, 2024 to the effect that the Register has been taken away by the husband of Page 8 of 25

¶30

opposite party No.2 but instead priority was given for disposal of G.P. Appeal Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 and without any such proper hearing held in G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024, the impugned order dated 27^th January, 2025 was passed, all the more when, the Ex-BDO did not turn up as he was required to be confronted with the report which apparently proved attendance of the petitioners in all such meetings.

¶31

7. The record in G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 is perused on being produced in compliance of the Court’s order dated 11^th February, 2024. In fact, petitioner Nos.5 & 7 have been declared disqualified upon disposal of G.P. Appeal Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 respectively by orders dated 19^th December, 2024 and 18^th December, 2024 respectively under Section 26(2) read with Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. In addition to the above, the above petitioners and others invited disqualification under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act, which is under challenge at present.

¶32

8. Heard Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ray, learned AGA appearing for opposite party Nos.1 & 3 and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

¶33

9. According to Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, the action of opposite party No.1 is arbitrary and illegal since no proper enquiry has been held as contemplated under Section 26(1) of the Act. The further submission is that the Ex-BDO was not examined as he had submitted a report favourable to the Page 9 of 25

¶34

petitioners prepared based on the relevant records. It is contended that opposite party No.1 without considering the application moved by them demanding production of the records and without insisting upon the presence of the ExBDO for the purpose of confrontation of the report and by not truly complying the Court’s order in W.P.(C) No.1944 of 2025 dated 21^st January, 2025 declared such disqualification under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act, which deserves immediate intervention. The contention is that the no confidence motion initiated against opposite party No.2 was derailed, but consequent upon interference of this Court in W.P.(C) No.26251 of 2024, it was restored and was brought to its logical end. It is further contended that opposite party No.1 was totally biased from the very beginning and was hell bent upon to conclude the proceeding before the vote of no confidence moved against opposite party No.2. It is alleged that no due procedure has been followed and without proper enquiry and on the premise that there is tampering of the record and in particular, Attendance Register, opposite party No.1 reached at such a conclusion vide Annexure-10 accepting report of opposite party No.3 ignoring the earlier report of the ExBDO dated 7^th October, 2024 received in obedience to G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024, wherein, it has been revealed that no record was maintained towards delivery of notices of the meetings produced during such enquiry by the PEO or the Sarpanch of the GP and disclosing the fact that the Ward Members usually attend the meetings whether notice served

¶35

Page 10 of 25

¶36

or otherwise but apparently refused to put their signatures in the Resolution Register of the GP meetings and in that connection, the then PEO produced a copy of the separate attendance sheet of the meetings held on 22^nd July, 2024 and 29^th August, 2024 inasmuch as all the Ward Members including the Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch found to have put their signatures in the attendance report but the originals had not been produced with the plea that the same are retained by opposite party No.2. Under such circumstances and in view of the report of the Ex-BDO as above ignoring the same and not insisting upon examination of the concerned BDO, the need of which has been felt unnecessary in view of correspondence as at Annexure-A/1 series to the counter, it is pleaded that a decision regarding disqualification of the petitioners under Section 25(2)(b) read with Section 26 of the Act is unjust and illegal when there has been an allegation of tampering of record concluded at the end of the proceeding and the need for further investigation as per the Record Manual, 1964 and OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 in respect of the officials found guilty in due discharge of duty. Lastly, it is contended that the claim of the Ex-PEO, who furnished the RTI reply was to the effect that the overwriting and alterations leading to the tampering of record was at the instruction of opposite party No.2, who denied the same needed immediate investigation but on such premise even after having received a report from opposite party No.3, ignoring all such material

¶37

Page 11 of 25

¶38

aspects and declaring disqualification of the petitioners vide Annexure-1 cannot be justified.

¶39

10. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the proceeding has been conducted in a most fair manner providing reasonable opportunity to both the sides and in compliance of the Court’s order in W.P.(C) No.1944 of 2025 dated 21^st January, 2025 and at last, on a subjective satisfaction arrived at, opposite party No.1 declared the petitioners disqualified for having not attended the meetings proved from the report of opposite party No.3. It is contended that the proceeding under Section 26 of the Act is summary in nature, wherein, cross-examination is not allowed and any such disqualification depends on an enquiry and opportunity provided to the delinquent member of the GP and in the case of the petitioners, due procedure was followed with the hearings having taken place over a period of four months and finally, on being satisfied, the disqualification was directed and therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-10 deserves no interference.

¶40

11. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 corroborated the stand of opposite party No.1 and it is contended that a proceeding under Section 26 of the Act merely demands an enquiry and after considering the response of the petitioners, it was disposed of and rightly so opposite party No.1 declared all of them being disqualified under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act. It is further contended that ample opportunity was provided to the petitioners and

¶41

Page 12 of 25

¶42

considering the relevant record, report of the concerned BDO, such a decision has been taken by opposite party No.1, which is not to be interfered with.

¶43

12. Section 26 of the Act stipulates that an enquiry is to be held by the Collector while dealing with the disqualification of a member of the GP including Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch and a proceeding may be initiated either suo motu or on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) thereof. The above provision further stipulates that an opportunity of hearing is to be provided to any such member, who has been proceeded with and thereafter, to pass an order in that behalf and upon such a decision in view of sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the Act, any such Sarpanch, Naib Sarpanch or a member of the GP shall stand disqualified upon such decision published and to be deemed to have vacated the office with effect from the date of such publication. On a reading of the above provisions of Section 26 of the Act, it is understood that the Collector is to hold an enquiry and upon providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned member or Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch, whosoever, to take a decision on disqualification and to pass appropriate order in that regard and such decision shall be final and conclusive. It is unlike a regular trial that a proceeding under Section 26 of the Act is followed, wherein, according to the Court, an enquiry is to be held providing an opportunity of being heard to both the sides. In such a proceeding, which is quasi-judicial in nature even though to be held in a summary manner, reasonable opportunity of hearing to defend the Page 13 of 25

¶44

same has to be provided to the delinquent member of the GP. If any such above evidence is received during the proceeding, it is for the Collector to bring it to the notice of the member, who has been proceeded under Section 26 of the Act, which means, it has to be confronted with so that there is a proper defence. The enquiry held under Section 26 of the Act is not concerned with declaring the election void or granting any consequential declaration as to who has been duly elected as a result but it merely enables a person specified under sub-section (1) thereof to invite a decision on the question of disqualification of a member and for that, the Collector has to prima facie satisfy himself while issuing notice to any such person whose disqualification is in question and in that connection, principles of natural justice are to be followed and the intent and the purpose is to ensure that no unqualified person holds the post, with such jurisdiction exercisable either suo motu or upon an application received under sub-section (1) in course of which any other information or materials may be received from various sources. The intention behind the proceeding under Section 26 of the Act is to ensure that any such member of the GP including Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch who stands disqualified on any of the grounds of Section 25 thereof is not allowed to remain or hold the post to which he or she is not eligible and entitled to.

¶45

13. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners cited the following decisions, such as, Smt. Mithila Seth Vrs. The Collector, Bolangir 2011 (Supp.II)

¶46

Page 14 of 25

¶47

OLR 594 ; Smt. Pabani Gajendra Vrs. State of Orissa & others 2005 (II) OLR 686 ; and Subash Sitari Vrs. State of Odisha & others 2024 (I) ILR-CUT-1282 besides an order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31203 of 2024 dated 23^rd July, 2025 to contend that real opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioners.

¶48

14. In Smt. Mithila Seth (supra), it has been held and concluded by a Division Bench of this Court that the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, so that, it can be safely concluded that opportunity of hearing has been afforded as provided under Section 26 of the Act. In Smt. Pabani Gajendra (supra) referred to herein above, this Court held and concluded that when wide powers are restored on the authority in a proceeding while dealing with an action under Section 26 of the Act, more restraint should be observed while exercising the same and therein, the copies of the reports had not been supplied to the delinquent member and under such circumstances, it was held that no proper opportunity was afforded to confront the same and even to lead the evidence with liberty and hence, remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. In Nandu Bagarti @ Nandu Bagarty Vrs. State of Odisha & others in W.P.(C) No.31203 of 2024 cited above, this Court referring to a decision in Sri Kasteswar Khatua Vrs. State of Orissa and others 2004 (I) OLR 275 reiterated the view expressed therein and concluded that all such reports relied upon to hold that a 3^rd child was born after the cut-off date and other adverse materials have not been confronted,

¶49

Page 15 of 25

¶50

hence, the matter needs a fresh examination on the plea of disqualification in terms of section 25 (2)(v) of the Act. In Subash Sitari (supra), this Court held that the enquiry report or any such report relied on by the Collector had not been communicated to the Sarpanch, who was declared disqualified and hence, held that the decision on disqualification is not sustainable with the observation that the grant of opportunity of hearing to him is a statutory mandate and such opportunity of hearing includes service of copies of all such documents cited against him.

¶51

15. It is the settled position of law that Section 26 of the Act even though summary in nature but a proper enquiry is necessary with reasonable opportunity of hearing provided to the member concerned. A detailed enquiry is the need and necessity for such a proceeding and the delinquent member is required to be confronted with all the adverse materials for a proper reply and response. The Court is also of the view that each and every witness is not required to be examined, cross-examined and discharged like a regular trial. If in case, any such evidence relied on and referred to while demanding disqualification of a member of the GP and there is need felt by the Collector that any such official is required to be summoned for the purpose of crossexamination, under such circumstances, it should be directed in the interest of justice since the ultimate aim and objective is to ascertain whether such member is qualified to hold the post or otherwise. To demand cross-examination of all such witnesses as a matter of right in such a proceeding Page 16 of 25

¶52

under Section 26 of the Act cannot be entertained. The statutory requirement therein is that an enquiry is to be held and the materials adverse to the members of the G.P. are to be brought after confronted to him and if necessary, any of the official witnesses whose presence and examination is necessary, it should be directed and also to allow his crossexamination, if it is really needed. The purpose is to elicit the real truth while considering the plea of disqualification.

¶53

16. In so far as the case of the petitioners is concerned, this Court by order dated 21^st January, 2025 in W.P.(C) No.1944 of 2025 directed opposite party No.1 to consider their request as per Annexure-4 series therein and to supply certified copies of the orders demanded and thereafter to pass necessary order in connection with G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 and shortly thereafter, the impugned order at Annexure-10 arrived. As earlier stated, the other proceedings in G.P. Appeal Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 have been disposed of and it was followed by the final order dated 27^th January, 2025 in G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024. It has been alleged by the petitioners that despite such an order in W.P.(C) No.1944 of 2025, opposite party No.1 disposed of the proceeding on 27^th January, 2025.

¶54

17. On perusal of the LCR, this Court finds that the ExPEO, namely, Sri Bijay Kumar Sethi of Belpal GP was summoned and he was examined and confronted with and it was disclosed by him and revealed from order dated 27^th January, 2025 in G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 that the copies

¶55

Page 17 of 25

¶56

of the original were forcibly taken away by the husband of the Sarpanch and such evidence was received in presence of opposite party No.2, who denied any such claim alleging it to be a lie and having received such a response, his further examination was considered necessary but since certain issues required to be proved along with the Registers and documents maintained by the GP, the incumbent PEO was directed to be remain present at the time of hearing with concerned Registers so that the Ex-PEO could clarify the doubts and accordingly fixed the next hearing on 24^th January, 2025, the date on which, no hearing was held and finally on 27^th January, 2025, the impugned order at Annexure-10 was passed. In course of such hearing, it has been claimed by the Ex-PEO that the correction made in Resolution Register to have been carried out on the instruction of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 as made to appear from Annexure-10 that he though considered the reply of the Ex-PEO, who even made a reference to the representation dated 29^th August, 2024 addressed to opposite party No.3 regarding disturbance taking place in the GP, it was ignored with a conclusion that such a response was to escape and avoid coercive action and that apart, it has no bearing to the case.

¶57

18. The petitioners heavily relied on the RTI report dated 24^th September, 2025, the copies of which have been taken judicial notice of by opposite party No.1. However, it has been concluded that upon perusal of the reply under the RTI Act furnished by the Ex-PEO, the Resolution Register was Page 18 of 25

¶58

found tampered with overwriting, erasures and blanks as compared to the copies received from opposite party No.3 annexed with the enquiry report dated 7^th October, 2024. With such manipulation, the Register was confronted to Mr. Sethi, the then PEO while under examination and it was revealed by him that such alteration has taken place therein as per instruction of opposite party No.2. The above disclosure made by the Ex-PEO has been denied, as earlier stated so revealed from Annexure-10. The RTI reply, as a result, has not been considered by opposite party No.1 and with a conclusion that the Register and other documents of the GP were tinkered with and it was with a malafide intention, hence, further investigation is necessary but at the same time, proceeded to hold that the petitioners stand disqualified under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act. The alleged manipulation in the record is being alleged against opposite party No.2 and it has been at the behest of the Ex-PEO. No any allegation ever surfaced in course of proceeding under Section 26 of the Act about any of the petitioners to be involved in the manipulation of the record, rather, the claim of the petitioners is that they have attended the meetings but refused to sign in some of the proceedings for the reasons stated, a fact which is supported by the report of the ExPEO dated 7^th October, 2024 and for such manipulation directed against opposite party No.2 they could not have been penalized even when opposite party No.1 had concluded that tampering of the record requires further investigation to punish the officials responsible for the

¶59

Page 19 of 25

¶60

same. Had it been that the petitioners alleged to be responsible for the manipulation, it would have been reasonable for opposite party No.1 to declare them disqualified but the allegation of tampering of record as per the Ex-PEO is against opposite party No.2. It has been alleged that the manipulation by overwriting, erasures etc. was done on the instruction of opposite party No.2. According to the Court, a detailed enquiry was necessary which was even felt and realized by opposite party No.1 but before any such investigation was commenced, opposite party No.1 proceeded further and instead declared the petitioners disqualified for having not attended the meetings. On a reading of the report dated 7^th October, 2024 received in evidence before opposite party No.1, it is revealed that as per the information shared by the PEO of the GP, notices were served on the Ward Members and some of them intentionally refused and avoided to sign on the service return but there has been no any record maintained regarding postal delivery of such notices having not been produced during the enquiry by the PEO but from the copies of the attendance sheet of the meetings held on 22^nd July, 2024 and 29^th August, 2024, all including opposite party No.2 and Naib Sarpanch had put their signatures, whereas, the originals were not produced being in possession of opposite party No.2. In fact, the PEO is considered the custodian of the Attendance Register and he is required to maintain the same in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules of Business read with Odisha Gram Panchayat Rules,

¶61

Page 20 of 25

¶62

It is quite not understood how the Attendance Register was retained or had been in the hands of opposite party No.2 against whom manipulation has been alleged by the Ex-PEO. The RTI reply received from the PEO concerned supports the claim of the petitioners but it has been ignored by opposite party No.1. Such report dated 7^th October, 2024 of the Ex-BDO clearly reveals that the copies of the attendance sheet produced by the PEO then revealed the details of the members attended the meetings on 22^nd July, 2024 and 29^th August, 2024. The originals of the attendance sheet could not be produced by the PEO and it was informed to the Ex-BDO that the same are in custody of opposite party No.2. The information and the record shared with the Ex-BDO has become a part of the order dated 7^th October, 2024 and even though he has not been examined. It is a matter of record that the attendance sheet on the dates of the meetings dated 22^nd July, 2024 and 29^th August, 2024 revealed the signatures of all the members including the Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch but the originals of the same could not be produced as it was allegedly claimed to be in possession of opposite party No.2 as per revelation made in the said report.

¶63

19. Under such circumstances and when there has been manipulation in the record and such manipulation was not directed against the petitioners but opposite party No.2 by the Ex-PEO, who was examined, the Court is of the conclusion that opposite party No.1 on the basis of such evidence received during enquiry though under the Page 21 of 25

¶64

impression that the investigation is required into the tampering of the record and action according to the provisions of the Record Manual, 1964 and OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 against the erring officials responsible for the same, was not proper to conclude that the petitioners did not attend the meetings, hence, invited disqualification under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act. According to the Court, the decision of opposite party No.1 should have been based on unimpeachable evidence as to the attendance of the petitioners or otherwise and when it is unclear in view of tampering of the record, such decision vide Annexure-10 cannot be sustained. It is not that the petitioners are guilty of misconduct, rather, they faced the proceeding for disqualification and therefore, it was for opposite party No.1 to be doubly sure before reaching at a conclusion about their default in attending the meetings which failed to be established in juxtaposition to the report of the Ex-BDO and the evidence of PEO concerned. For the manipulation of the record, it is unjust to declare the petitioners’ disqualification. Rather, it was the bounden duty for opposite party No.1 to hold a detailed enquiry on tampering of the record and in particular, Attendance Register and if at all, the same was at the behest of any of the members of the GP or for that matter, opposite party No.2 against whom allegation was made by the Ex-PEO though it has been denied by her. It is reiterated that the decision in a hurry or without proper enquiry, any declaration on disqualification of a member is uncalled for as he is an elected

¶65

Page 22 of 25

¶66

representative of the GP and hence, an onerous responsibility was cast upon opposite party No.1 to fully satisfied that the petitioners are disqualified under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act. The Court is inclined to hold that the evidence is not sufficient to reach at any such conclusion about the disqualification of the petitioners being guilty at for the default in attending the meetings when the evidence on record and the reports of the Ex-BDO and PEO are pitted against each other.

¶67

20. In State of Punjab Vrs. Baldev Singh AIR 1999 SC 2378 , the Apex Court held and observed that removal of an elected office bearer has very serious repercussions and hence, implicitly makes it imperative and obligatory on the part of the authority concerned, who is to strictly adhere to the statutory provisions while exercising the power taking all such safeguards provided under the statute and finally referring to the earlier case laws in Mohinder Kumar Vrs. State, Panaji, Goa (1998) 8 SCC 655 and Ali Mustafa Abdul Rahman Moosa Vrs. State of Kerala AIR 1995 SC 244 observed that severe the punishment, greater care to be taken to ensure that all the safeguards provided in the statute are scrupulously followed. According to the Court, there cannot be a casual approach to a matter which deals with disqualification of a member of the GP. An authority under the Act shall have to be sincere enough to ensure that all such relevant facts are brought on record for a just decision with a proper and effective enquiry conducted, since disqualification of a member of the GP is involved. Any

¶68

Page 23 of 25

¶69

such casual approach is likely to unseat an elected representative. In the case of the petitioners, there has been such a report of the Ex-BDO dated 7^th October, 2024 and clear manipulation of record was revealed during enquiry, hence, opposite party No.1 should not have declared their disqualification without being fully satisfied. It does appear that opposite party No.1 apparently blamed the petitioners for the manipulation of the record when it has been against opposite party No.2 with the claim by the Ex-PEO which is a matter of record though denied. It is not known whether any further enquiry has been conducted but the impugned order at Annexure-10 reveals that on the basis of a record tampered with, the petitioners have been declared disqualified. Any such decision with the kind of evidence received is fraught with great amount of risk. Though in the manner it was considered proper that the proceeding has been dealt with and managed by opposite party No.1, the Court is of the humble view that a detailed enquiry was necessary before accepting the report of opposite party No.3 when the RTI reply is otherwise and when it is supported by a revelation made by the Ex-PEO. The manipulation in the record without further investigation by opposite party No.1 and at the same time to hold the petitioners as disqualified cannot be countenanced. It is made to suggest that opposite party No.1 ensured a threadbare enquiry on the face of tampering of record but for the discussions herein above, he could not have concluded that the petitioners did not attend

¶70

Page 24 of 25

¶71

the meetings as against the evidence received and the report of Ex-BDO dated 7^th October, 2024.

¶72

21. Though, in the instant case, opposite party No.1 attempted to defend the action referring to the recent report of the BDO concerned but in view of the fact that there has been manipulation of record allegedly attributed to opposite party No.2 by the Ex-PEO, truth of which, is yet to be unearthed and such other materials received including the report dated 7^th October, 2024 of the Ex-BDO, it has to be held that any such decision vis-à-vis disqualification of the petitioners on the strength of such evidence being part of record is not acceptable and cannot be justified.

¶73

22. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶74

23 . In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned decision of opposite party No.1 by order dated 27^th January, 2025 in G.P. Appeal No.4 of 2024 is hereby set aside.

¶75

Alok

¶76

Signature Not Verified

¶77

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 09-Jan-2026 16:09:04

¶78

Page 25 of 25

Mamata Manjari Sethi v. Collector Kendrapara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamata Manjari Sethi v. Collector Kendrapara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Blue Lagoon Mandap, Bolangir Vs State of Odisha

M/S Utkal Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Khurda Vs Akhil Agarwal

M/S Utkal Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Khurda Vs Neeraj Beri

Binapani Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Ohid Khan Vs State of Odisha

Dr. Chinmay Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha