Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 196 (MP)

Gram Panchayat, Kondar v. State of M. P.

2007-02-19

SURENDRA KUMAR

body2007
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order Annexure P-1 dated 4.1.2006 setting aside the resolution and termination of services of respondent No.4. 2. The respondent No.4 was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in the Panchayat in the year 1995. There were allegations against the respondent No.4 with regard to some omissions or irregularities. Subsequently, a show cause notice (Annexure P-3) dated 9.7.2005 was issued to him. It was mentioned in the notice that the respondent No. 4 withdrew an amount of Rs. 11,000/- by making forged signature of the Sarpanch. Some allegations were with regard to illegality in distribution of food grains. Thereafter, the Panchayat passed a resolution dated 27.7.2005 terminating the services of respondent No.4. Against the aforesaid resolution, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the appellate authority granted stay in favour of the respondent No.4. Against the aforesaid order of stay, passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner Panchayat filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WP No. 3094/2005. This Court vide order dated 17.8.2005 disposed of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the appellate authority. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the appellate authority set aside the order of termination of the respondent No.4 and also the resolution passed by the Panchayat. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned is against the law, because the appellate authority has considered the enquiry report, which was conduced by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat on the instructions of the Collector, which is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that allegations of misappropriation were found proved against the respondent No.4. 4. Contrary to this learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that the answering respondent has not been given any opportunity of hearing. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, enquired the matter and found all the allegations baseless. Hence, appropriate order has been passed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the respondent conducted an enquiry on the direction of the Collector. 6. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, enquired the matter and found all the allegations baseless. Hence, appropriate order has been passed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the respondent conducted an enquiry on the direction of the Collector. 6. From the facts stated above it is clear that a show cause notice was issued to the respondent No.4 and it appears that no reply was filed but from the record it is not clear that whether any notice was served to the respondent No.4 or not and thereafter, the Panchayat passed a resolution terminating the services of respondent No.4. Subsequently, order of termination of respondent No.4 has been passed. Allegations against the respondent No.4 were that he withdrew an amount of Rs. 11,000/- from the Bank by forged signature of the Sarpanch and he committed certain irregularities in distributing the food grains and misappropriated the amount. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the resolution on the ground that the Collector on a complaint directed for an enquiry from the Chief Executive Officer. In the aforesaid enquiry charges were found baseless. Copy of the enquiry report has been filed as Annexure R-3-2 alongwith the reply filed by the respondent No. 3. 8. In the enquiry report, the respondent No.3 has stated that he received a photo copy of the cheque of Rs. 11,000/-, which was submitted by the respondent No.4 in the Bank and he also verified the signature and it was found that the signature of the Sarpanch was genuine. He further mentioned some facts with regard to distribution of food grains. It is clear from the enquiry report that the Chief-Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat has not given any opportunity to the Sarpanch or he has not recorded the statements of the Sarpanch. The Sarpanch has clearly stated in her complaint that her signature on the cheque was forged. 9. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the statement of the Sarpanch was necessary before the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. The Sarpanch has clearly stated in her complaint that her signature on the cheque was forged. 9. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the statement of the Sarpanch was necessary before the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. Apart from this as per the provisions of section 87 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the State Government is empowered to conduct certain enquiry with regard to omissions and irregularities to by the Panchayat and the Government is also authorised, as per section 69 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, for appointment of Secretary of the Panchayat and those powers have been delegated by the State Government to the Collector. As per section 93 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 there is no provision with regard to sub-delegation of powers by the Collector. 10. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the enquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, on the directions of the Collector was beyond his powers. Hence, the Sub-Divisional Officer has committed illegality in relying on the enquiry report of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. 11. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 4.1.2006 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Panchayat. It is hereby ordered that the Panchayat looking the nature of the case, shall conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate resolution or order if it thinks necessary. The enquiry be completed within a period of six weeks. 12. This Court on 30.1.2006 has granted status quo with regard to status of the respondent No.4. This order may continue up to the decision of the enquiry. No order as to costs.