Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 27 (MP)

Satendra Singh v. State of M. P.

2005-01-04

A.K.MISHRA

body2005
ORDER 1. Petitioner has assailed an order of termination of his service by Panchayat and also an order (P-5) passed by Additional Collector, District Rewa on 12.5.2003. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat Dugoli, Tahsil Hanumana, District Rewa in the year 1995. His services were terminated on the ground of not discharging the duties in proper manner arid not following the command of Sarpanch as per resolution (R-5-2) dated 6.9.1997. Aggrieved by the order of removal, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the SDO which was decided as per order (P-4) dated 12.2.1998. The order of termination of services of petitioner was set aside on the ground that as per para 7 of the guidelines issued in the matter of implementation of Panchayat Karmi Scheme by the State Government in the year 1995, show cause notice was not issued to Panchayat Karmi, his reply was not received, as such the due process prescribed in para 7 of the guidelines has not been followed. Aggrieved by the order, respondents 4 and 5 preferred a revision before Additional Col1ector, District Rewa which has been allowed as per order (P-5) dated 12.5.2003 on the ground that Gram Panchayat is competent to take a decision for removal of Panchayat Karmi. 3. Petitioner has mainly assailed the order on the ground that procedure prescribed in para 7 of the guidelines has not been followed, show cause notice has not been issued, before taking disciplinary action reply was not obtained, as such the order is violative of procedure prescribed in para 7 of the guidelines. 4. Shri Harish Agnihotri and Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 have submitted that considering the serious nature of charges and also the fact that Panchayat has passed a resolution with majority, due compliance of principle of natural justice has been made, hence, no interference is cal1ed for in the writ petition. 5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and also considering the fact that SDO has set aside the termination of the services of petitioner on the ground that procedure prescribed in para 7 of the guidelines in the matter of implementation of Panchayat Karmi Scheme has not been followed, in my opinion, the impugned order is bad in law. 5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and also considering the fact that SDO has set aside the termination of the services of petitioner on the ground that procedure prescribed in para 7 of the guidelines in the matter of implementation of Panchayat Karmi Scheme has not been followed, in my opinion, the impugned order is bad in law. Para 7 of the Scheme read thus: ^^7- vuq’kkfld dk;Zokgh & & iapk;rdehZ ij iz’kklfd; fu;a=.k iw.kZr% lacaf/kr xzke iapk;r dk gksxkA drZO; dh mis{kk] drZO; dk vikyu] vfu;ferrk vkfn dh n’kk esa muds fo:} vuq’kklukRed dk;Zokgh djus ds vf/kdkj xzke iapk;r esa fufgr gksaxsA iapk;rdehZ dks dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk fn, tkus rFkk ;fn dksbZ mrj muds }kjk fn;k gks rks ml ij fopkj djus ds mijkar xzke iapk;r dh lekU; lHkk mls in ls gVk ldsxhA^^ 6. It is clear from above quoted para 7 that show cause notice is required to be issued by Gram Panchayat before taking any action against Panchayat Karmi on the ground of irregularity, no show cause notice was issued in the instant case, the reason given by the SDO has not been adverted to by the Additional Collector at all while reversing the order passed by the SDO. Learned counsel for respondents are also unable to show any material to show that show cause notice was issued. 7. Thus, the writ petition is meritorious. Order (P-5) cannot be allowed to stand as it has failed to consider the material aspect of non-issuance of show cause notice and violation of the procedure prescribed in the guidelines. As show cause notice was not issued, petitioner was deprived of opportunity to defend which is expressly mandated by para 7 quoted above, hence, I find that the termination has been rightly set aside by the SDO. The order passed by the SDO is restored and that of Additional Collector is hereby set aside. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this writ petition.