Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 368 (MP)

Rambhan Suraha v. Additional Commissioner, Sagar

2003-03-05

K.K.LAHOTI

body2003
ORDER 1. Petitioner aggrieved by order (Annex. A-II) passed by Additional Collector, Panna in Case No. 07/Revision/2002-2003 on 3rd December, 2002 has filed the present petition by which the revision filed by respondent Kalicharan was allowed and order of removal from service as Panchayat Karmi was set aside. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that against the order Annexure A-2 dated 16th July, 2002, respondent Kalicharan filed appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was barred by time and the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order (Annex. A-9) dated 7.9.2002 found that the appeal is barred by limitation, consequently, the aforesaid appeal was dismissed. Respondent Kali Charan preferred a revision against the aforesaid order. The Additional Collector while hearing the revision found that the appeal was within limitation and the case was heard and decided on merits and it was allowed. Challenging the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Additional Collector committed an error in allowing the revision on merits while he ought to have considered the case only on the question of limitation. 3. From the perusal of order Annexure P-9 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the appeal was filed on 23.8.2002 against the order of removal of Kalicharan. The aforesaid appeal was barred near about 5 days and the SDO dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The Additional Collector while hearing the revision considered it in paras 3 and 4 of the order and found that the entire procedure for removal of respondent Kalicharan is suspicious. He also found that for removal of Panchayat Karmi, the procedure envisaged in rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Services (Administration and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was not followed. It is mandatory requirement of law and in absence of the aforesaid procedure, the order of removal of respondent Kalicharan cannot be sustained. Counsequently, the Additional Collector allowed the revision and the order of removal was also quashed. 4. The power of revision is envisaged under rule 5 of M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, J 995 which reads as under: "5. Counsequently, the Additional Collector allowed the revision and the order of removal was also quashed. 4. The power of revision is envisaged under rule 5 of M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, J 995 which reads as under: "5. Revision – (l)(a) The State Government, the Commissioner, the Director of Panchayat, the Collector may on its/his own motion or on the application by any party, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceeding of, the authority subordinate to it/him call for and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by such authority and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he may think fit: Provided that it/he shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them for being heard: Provided further that no application for revision shall be entertained against an order appealable under the Act. (b) An application for revision by any party shall only be entertained if it is on the point of law and not on facts. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) – (i) Where proceedin6s in respect of any case have been commenced by the State Government under sub-rule (1) no action shall be taken by other officer mentioned in the said sub-rule in respect thereof, and (ii) Where proceedi'1gs in respect of any such case have been commenced by the officer mentioned in sub-rule (1), the State Government may either refrain from taking any action under this rule in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceeding by such. officer or may withdraw such proceeding and pass such order as it may deem fit." 5. The aforesaid rule 5 has given wide power to the revisional authority to satisfy himself as to the legality and propriety of any order passed by the authority subordinate to it. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the Revsional Authority was having such power to set aside the order of removal of respondent Kalicharan from the service which was passed without following due procedure of law. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the Additional Collector, Panna while hearing the revision against the order (Annex. A-9) has not committed any error in deciding the case on merits. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the Additional Collector, Panna while hearing the revision against the order (Annex. A-9) has not committed any error in deciding the case on merits. He has found that the order of removal itself was illegal and was passed without following due procedure of law. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I do not fine any merit in this petition. Consequently this petition is dismissed. Certified copy as per Rules.