Holding

The language of sub‑section (2) does not require a verbatim repetition of the phrase; the removal order is valid if it expresses the conclusion unambiguously after giving the Sarpanch a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Summary

A.C. Jena, the Sarpanch of Padanipal Gram Panchayat in Orissa, was suspended and later removed from office under Section 115 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, after a report by the Sub‑Divisional Officer and a notice giving him a chance to show cause. The Collector’s suspension order expressly stated that Jena’s continuance would be detrimental to the Panchayat, and the State Government’s removal order, after rejecting his explanation, also removed him. Jena challenged the removal before the Orissa High Court, which quashed the orders on the ground that the removal order did not repeat the specific phrase that his continuance would be detrimental. The Supreme Court held that sub‑section (2) of Section 115 does not mandate a verbatim repetition of that phrase; it only requires the authority to form an opinion and express it in clear terms after a reasonable opportunity to the Sarpanch. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the removal, and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether sub‑section (2) of Section 115 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 requires the removal order to expressly repeat the specific language that the Sarpanch's continuance would be detrimental to the Gram Panchayat.
Whether the omission of such specific wording renders the removal order invalid.

Legislation cited

Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964s. 115

Subjects

Gram PanchayatSarpanch removalSection 115Orissa Gram Panchayat ActAdministrative lawProcedural fairnessStatutory interpretationMandatory language

Judgment

ST A TE OF ORlSSA AND ANR. A
v.
ALEKH CHANDRA JENA

DECEMBER 7, 1987
B
[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- c
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
D
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
E
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
F
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,
,.. ' G
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
H

177
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
'r
interest of the Gram Panchayat and the inhabitants of the Grama. The
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
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.

E A.K. Panda for the Appellant. 1
J .R. Das for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F 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.

The relevant provisions of section I 15 of the Act read as
follows:
H "115( I). If on the report of the Sub-Divisional
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 person in office would be
detrimental to the interest of the Orama Panchayat or the
inhabitants of the Orama, he may, by order, suspend the
Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be, from
office and report the matter to the State Government.

(2) The State Government, on the report of the
c
Collector under sub-S. ( 1) shall, or if the State Govern-
ment themselves are of the opinion that the circumstances
specified in the said sub-section exist in relation to a
Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, then on their own motion,
may, after giving the person concerned a reasonable D
opportunity of showing cause, remove him from the office
of Sarpanch or Naib-Sarpanch, as the case may be.

(3)

E

\ ( 4) A Sarpanch or N aib-Sarpanch on removal from

~\
office under sub-S. (2) shall also cease to be a member of
the Grame Panchayat, and such person shall not be eligi-
I ble for election as a member for a period not exceeding
four years as the State Government may specify. F

(5)

The Collector, Cuttack, petitioner No. 2, before us, received a report G
(Appendix to Annexure A) from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kendra
Pada, stating the facts and circumstances which clearly satisfy the
conditions mentioned in section 115 of the Act, for the suspension
and removal of the respondent. The Collector, Cuttack, thereupon
suspended the Sarpanch by his order dated 24.4.1985 (Annexure-A)
and while so doing he expressly mentioned that on going through the H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A report of the Sub-divisional Officer he was satisfied that the Sarpanch
acted in a manner as detailed in the Appendix and "his further
continuance in office would be detrimental to the interest of the said
Gram a Panchayat as also of the inhabitants of the Grama." Accor-
dingly a notice as required by sub-section (2) was served on the
Sarpanch, who filed his detailed reply and was also personally heard.
B His explanation however was not considered satisfactory and an
order dated 24. 10.1986 bearing No. !9032/GP was passed removing
him from the office of the Sarpanch. A second notification of the
same date bearing No. 19039/GP was issued under sub-section (4).
The Sarpanch in these circumstances moved the High Court under ~
Aricle 226 of the Constitution. ~
c The High Court at the stage of admission by a short order j
quashed the notification issued against the petitioner "on the sole
and simple ground that the order does not specify one of the manda-
tory requirements, i.e., his further continuance in the office would be
detrimental to the interest of the Gram Panchayat or the inhabitants
D of the Gram". Elaborating the point the High Court observed as
follows:

" .... One of the circumstances mentioned in sub-section
( !) is just indicated above. As the existence of the circum-
stances mentioned in sub-section ( !) is condition prece-
~
E dent for passing an order of removal by the State '
Government, its absence makes the order wholly illegal
and without jurisdiction .... ".
I
'
As has been stated earlier, the Collector, while passing the "
order of suspension under sub-section ( 1) of section 115 expressly (
F stated that the further continuance of the petitioner in office would '
be detrimental to the interest of the Grama Panchayat and the 1
inhabitants of the Grama. He relied upon the report of the Sub-
divisional Officer mentioning serious allegations against the Sarpanch
which undoubtedly, if true, satisfied the conditions for exercise of the •
power. Since it has not been suggested before us otherwise, we do
G not consider it necessary to deal with them except mentioning that A•
besides many serious allegations, the report also said that certain
money belonging to the Grama Panchayat which had been received -4
at an auction was not deposited. In the order of removal, the State
Government after mentioning the allegations stated that the expla-
nation of the Sarpanch was not acceptable and he was, therefore,
H being removed from the office. The allegations made against him,
STATE OF ORISSA. v. A.C. JE!'IA [SHARMA, J.] 181

thus were accepted as correct. In other words the State Government A
was of the opinion that the circumstances specified in sub-section (!)
existed. It will be noticed that the language of sub-section (2) do"s
not require a repetition of the necessary satisfaction in the same
language as referable to sub-section ( !). Besides, the section cannot
be interpreted to mandatorily lay down a rule for the authority
concerned to express his conclusion in relation to the fulfilment of B
the conditions mentioned therein in a particular form using a parti-
cular set of words. 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 this case. We do not. c
therefore, see any justification in the High Court quashing the orders
impugned before it.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed, High Court's judgment is set
aside and the writ application filed before the High Court is dis-
missed. D

N.P.V. Appeal allowed.

.'