Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1408 (MP)

MOOL CHAND SONI v. STATE OF M P

2006-12-10

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD on the question of admission. ( 2. ) THE petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi vide order dated 28-11-1997 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Gram Panchayat Heerapur, Kodia. Thereafter, exercising the powers conferred under Section 69 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short Adhiniyam) the second respondent Collector, Katni appointed and notified him as Secretary of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat. ( 3. ) ON receipt of the information from the Chief Executive Officer, janpad Panchayat, Katni vide his letter dated 1-8-2006 in regard to the petitioners conviction for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 24-7-2006 passed by the Special Magistrate, State Economic Offence Investigation bureau, District Jabalpur, the second respondent Collector, Katni denotified the petitioner from the post of Secretary of the Gram Panchayat vide order dated 12-10-2006 (Annexure P-5 ). Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 4. ) THE petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the collector (Annexure P-5) has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to him. He contends that the order being arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed. According to the petitioner while passing the impugned order the second respondent has not followed the provisions of M. P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. He submits that the second respondent Collector is not the Competent Authority to pass the order denotifying him from the post of Panchayat Secretary on the basis of the letter of the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat. In support the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by this Court in case of Smt. Phoolwatibai Vs. State of M. P. and others [2002 (II) MPJR 395] and Narayan singh Rajput Vs. State of M. P. [2004 (2) Vidhi Bhaswar 234]. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my view, the contention raised by the petitioner have no force. The petitioner was appointed and notified by the second respondent as Panchayat Secretary exercising the powers conferred upon him under Section 69 (1) of the Adhiniyam. Thereafter on receipt of the information about his conviction for the offences as stated above, the second respondent denotified him from the post of Secretary. ( 6. ) IN case of Smt. Phoolwati Bai Vs. Thereafter on receipt of the information about his conviction for the offences as stated above, the second respondent denotified him from the post of Secretary. ( 6. ) IN case of Smt. Phoolwati Bai Vs. State of M. P. and others (supra), the dismissal of a teacher appointed by Gram Panchayat was under challenge. The services of teachers appointed by Gram Panchayat are not governed by section 69 of the Adhiniyam but their appointments are governed under Section 70 of the Adhiniyam and rules made thereunder. In the circumstances reliance of the petitioner on Phoolwati Bais case (supra), has got no relevance to the facts of this case. In case of Narayan Singh Rajput Vs. State of M. P. and others (supra), the Panchayat Karmi was removed without following the procedure prescribed for removal of the Panchayat Karmi provided under the scheme. However, in the present case the order under challenge is of denotification of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary passed by the second respondent under Section 69 of the Adhiniyam. The M. P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 are not applicable for Panchayat Secretary. These rules are framed in regard to the other officers and servant of Panchayat as per Section 70 of the Adhiniyam, in the circumstances, the petitioners contention that while passing the impugned order the provisions contained in m. P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 has not been followed is misconceived. ( 7. ) TO challenge the impugned order by which the petitioner has been denotified, the petitioner is having alternative and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal provided under Rule 3 of the M. P. Panchayat (Appeal and revision) Rules, 1995. The Appellate Authority under these rules is also empowered under Rule 8 to stay execution of the order appealed against pending decision of the appeal. ( 8. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal against the impugned order. ( 9. ) THE petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.