Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 855 (MP)

Bahadur Singh Jatav v. State of M. P.

2003-07-17

RAJENDRA MENON

body2003
ORDER 1. Even though the petition is listed for orders on MWP 101/03 but in view of very short controversy involved in the matter, with the consent of the parties, the petition is disposed of. 2. Petitioner, a panchayat karmi has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by a resolution Annexure P-12 issued by the respondents by which he has been removed from the post held by him. It is the case of the petitioner that his services have been terminated without hearing him, without issuing any show cause notice and without Clue and proper opportunity of hearing. Apart from the aforesaid, various other grounds with regard to authority of the Gram Panchayat to remove him is assailed. 3. On notice being issued, respondents have filed a detailed reply and it is contended in the reply that on the basis of the resolution, order has been passed vide Annexure R-1 on 25.3.2003 removing the petitioner from service. It is put forth by them that this order is an appealable order under the statutory rules and therefore petition directly before this Court is not maintainable. That apart, it is submitted that a show cause notice 5.3.2003 was issued to the petitioner, he refused to accept the same. A panchnama was prepared in this regard vide Annexure R-4. Thereafter, meeting of the Gram Sabha took place on 24.3.2003, in which the petitioner also participated and did not raise any objection nor submitted any explanation and therefore a resolution was passed removing him from service and the same was indicated to him. An order dated 25.3.2003 has been passed and the petitioner refused to accept the same as is evident from Panchnama filed in this regard vide Annexure R-8. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner was issued a show cause notice but he did not submit any reply to the same and therefore his contention that no opportunity of hearing was given to him is not correct. That apart, it is alleged that petitioner has filed certain forged and fabricated document vide Annexure P-1 at page 13 of the petition. The amended document being Annexure R-2 dated 6.1.2001 and because of this policy, it is alleged that the petition should be dismissed. 4. That apart, it is alleged that petitioner has filed certain forged and fabricated document vide Annexure P-1 at page 13 of the petition. The amended document being Annexure R-2 dated 6.1.2001 and because of this policy, it is alleged that the petition should be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due perusal of the records, it is seen that the contention of the respondents that petitioner has filed a forged document cannot be accepted. Petitioner has filed certain order dated 22nd May 1999 and the so called document Annexure R-2, further amendment in this policy, letter filed by the petitioner. Merely because the amended document was not filed, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has filed a forged document and had suppressed material facts. There is nothing on record to indicate that the same amounts to deliberate supression nor has the petitioner made any ground for impugning the action on the basis of the aforesaid document. 5. The question in consideration is as to whether the petitioner should be relegated with alternate remedy available to him by this Court or to grant relief to the petitioner in the present petition. Even though normal rule is that when alternate remedy is available, petition should not be directly entertained, but as the rule is of practice as indicated in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ramji Kewat and others [ 2002 (II) MPJR 69 ]. As indicated in the aforesaid judgment, in certain cases, interference can be made and the same are cases in which order is passed without jurisdiction, order being in violation of the principles of natural justice and orders where fundamental rights are infringed. 6. The aforesaid view was further considered and upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s P.C.C. Construction Co. & others v. Debts Recovery Tribunal and another [ 2003 (1) JLJ 410 = 2003 (1) MPJR 260]. That being so, it is the case of the petitioner in the present petition that action has been taken without hearing him. The question is as to whether the aforesaid allegation is correct. Under the Scheme formulated for appointment and removal of panchayat karmi, Clause 7 deals with disciplinary action. That being so, it is the case of the petitioner in the present petition that action has been taken without hearing him. The question is as to whether the aforesaid allegation is correct. Under the Scheme formulated for appointment and removal of panchayat karmi, Clause 7 deals with disciplinary action. It contemplates that if the Gram Panchayat proposes to take disciplinary action against the employee then the panchayat karmi has to be issued with a show cause notice and if he does not submit any reply then the same has to be considered and thereafter placed in the general meeting of the Gram Panchayat and then only the panchayat karmi can be removed. In the present case the show cause notice as filed by the respondents Annexure R-3 dated 5.3.2003, there is no acknowledgment of the same available on record. The return is silent as to how the aforesaid notice was served and by whom and on which date it was proposed to be served on the petitioner and when he refused to accept the same. Service of the aforesaid show cause notice was explained by filing Annexure R-4 Panchnama to the fact that petitioner refused to accept the same and therefore it was affixed in front of the house. A perusal of the Panchnama Annexure R-4 indicates that the Order No.369 dated 13.3.2003 issued by the Collector was served with regard to meeting of the Panchayat. There is nothing in this panchnama to indicate that it was show cause notice Annexure R-3 dated 5.3.2003 which was served by this panchnama. The panchnama indicates that the petitioner refused to accept the notice dated 13.3.2003 with regard to meeting of the Panchayat. That being so, it has to be held that there is nothing on record to indicate that show cause notice was actually served on the petitioner and he refused to accept the same. 7. As an alternate even if it is accepted that show cause notice is served on the petitioner, there is another lacuna in the entire proceeding. The Rules contemplate that show cause notice should be issued and then if reply is filed, the same has to be heard. 7. As an alternate even if it is accepted that show cause notice is served on the petitioner, there is another lacuna in the entire proceeding. The Rules contemplate that show cause notice should be issued and then if reply is filed, the same has to be heard. Proceeding of the meeting held on 24.3.2003 filed as Annexure R-7 does not indicate that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has refused to accept the same or he did not file any reply to the same, the resolution does not indicate discussion with regard to the show cause notice or the a11egations made thereof. There is no mention of the show cause notice nor there is any mention with regard to allegation made against the petitioner thereof and final decision of removing him from service because of the aforesaid allegation. The requirement of c1ause 7 of the Scheme is application of mind on the a11egation and a decision taken thereof indicating that the Panchayat karmi should be removed because of misconduct or any other reason which disentitles him to continue in service. In the present case, there is nothing with regard to issuance of show cause notice or orders on the same. That being so, it is a case where action has been taken without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the meeting also, the resolution has been passed without consideration of the allegation which is requirement of the Scheme as contained in c1ause 7. That being so, it is the considered view of this Court that this is a case which falls in category (2) of the cases mentioned in the case of Life Insurance Corporation (supra), I am not inclined to relegate the petitioner to resort to the alternate remedy available to him for redressal of his grievance. 8. Accordingly the petition is allowed. Impugned resolution Annexure R-I and the consequential order passed thereof are quashed. 9. It is made c1ear that the aforesaid order shall not come in way of the respondent Panchayat to proceed and take action against the petitioner if they so desire. 10. Accordingly, petition is allowed and MWP 101/03 is rejected.