Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 881 (MP)

Kunjan Singh v. State of M. P.

2003-07-24

S.P.KHARE

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition for quashing order dated 14-7-2000 (Annexure P-3) of respondent No. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rahatgarh, District Sagar, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat, Deori (Mothi), Tehsil and District Sagar on 28-11-1994. A show-cause notice was served on him on 5-6-2000. That is Annexure P-1. In this notice it was stated that the petitioner has not given information to the newly elected Sarpanch about the affairs of the Gram Panchayat and he has also not informed the Sarpanch regarding the amount which is in deposit in various accounts of the Panchayat. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply. A copy of the reply is Annexure P-2. In this reply he gave full details of the amount deposited in various accounts of the Gram Panchayat, and also the other information. Thereafter the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the impugned order dated 14-7-2000 (Annexure P-3 ). The petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer which has been dismissed by order dated 3-10-2000 (Annexure P-5) without giving any reasons. The petitioner filed a revision against the appellate order before the Additional Collector, Sagar and that has also been rejected by order dated 24-12-2001 (Annexure P-15 ). ( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that he was in the service of Gram Panchayat since 1994 and his services have been terminated by order dated 14-7-2000 without following the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is submitted that the principles of natural justice have also not been followed and services, of the petitioner have been terminated without valid reason. ( 4. ) THE respondents have stated that services of the petitioner have been terminated in view of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat passed on 10-7-2000 in conformity with the Scheme of Panchayat Karmis. It is pointed out that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi. A copy of the Panchayat Karmi Scheme dated 12-9-1995 (Annexure R-3-1) has been produced. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. The Panchayat Karmi Scheme is dated 12-9-1995. It is pointed out that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi. A copy of the Panchayat Karmi Scheme dated 12-9-1995 (Annexure R-3-1) has been produced. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. The Panchayat Karmi Scheme is dated 12-9-1995. Thereafter the State Government has framed rules, which are known as "m. P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999". These rules superseded the provisions of the Scheme. This Scheme was held to contain executive instructions only in Ashok Kumar v. State of M. P. , 1999 (2) MPLJ 729 . Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of the Rules of 1999 provides : "except as otherwise provided by or under these rules, they apply to all persons employed in connection with the affairs of Zila Panchayats, Janpad Panchayats and the Gram Panchayats and discharging the functions of Zila Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Gram Panchayat. " According to Rule 2 (f) "member of Panchayat Service or a Panchayat Servant" means any person appointed to the Panchayat Service and includes an officer or servant allocated to the Panchayat Service. According to Rule 2 (j) "panchayat Service" means any Panchayat Service. Therefore, the Panchayat Karmis are also included in Panchayat Service and they are Panchayat Servants within the meaning of Rule 2 (f) of the Rules. They enjoy the protection of the Rules of 1999. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 provides procedure for imposing major penalties. This procedure was not followed in this case. The charges were not framed. The witnesses were not examined. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. There is no enquiry report. The copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. These are the essential requisites of the procedure of enquiry contained in Rule 7. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal. ( 6. ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The order dated 14-7-2000 of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rahatgarh is quashed. The appellate and revisional orders are also quashed. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to reinstate petitioner Kunjan Singh in service and pay him full back wages.