JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat, Manpur, District Raisen. He was also notified as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. A complaint was made on 16.6.1999 against the Sarpanch and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat by one Parmo Bai widow of Halke, alleging that they have pocketed the amount of 'Nirashrit Pension Yojna' allotted to her in the year 1995. Proceedings were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisen, and the preliminary enquiry was made by the Chief Executive, Officer of Janpad Panchayat Sanchi. Sarpanch and Secretary were served with show cause notices. In reply, the Sarpanch stated that the amount of Nirashrit Pension was diverted to another candidate because the complainant had lost her entitlement on account of leaving the Panchayat area and performing second marriage. A resolution to this effect was passed by the Gram Panchayat. Sarpanch also submitted his affidavit stating therein that the petitioner was not at fault at all as he being the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, took action under the directions of the Sarpanch in accordance with the resolution which is on record as Annexure P-7. Copy of the affidavit is on record as Annexure P-8. Petitioner submitted the reply and stated that he acted according to the directions of the Sarpanch as well as the resolution passed by the general body of the Gram Panchayat. Copy of the reply is on record as Annexure P-9. 2. After enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Officer Raisen, removed the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) vide order Annexure P-1 dated 24.8.1999. Appeal and revision were preferred before the Upper Collector Raisen and Commissioner Bhopal and Hoshangabad division which, too, have been dismissed on 8.11.1999 (Annexure P-2) and 8.5.2000 (Annexure P-3) respectively. This petition has been preferred challenging Annexure P-l, Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 on the ground that the petitioner being the Secretary of Gram Panchayat is bound to obey the orders of Sarpanch and the Gram Panchayat. The complainant having lost her entitlement on account of shifting to another Gram Panchayat area and further performing the second marriage was rightly not paid the Nirashrit Pension. 3. In the return, respondent No.1 stated that while discharging the duties as Secretary of Gram Panchayat he was supposed to act in honest, fair and responsible manner. The complainant having lost her entitlement on account of shifting to another Gram Panchayat area and further performing the second marriage was rightly not paid the Nirashrit Pension. 3. In the return, respondent No.1 stated that while discharging the duties as Secretary of Gram Panchayat he was supposed to act in honest, fair and responsible manner. On receiving the complaint, an enquiry was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer Raisen, through the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sanchi. It was found that the pension was being disbursed to Smt. Parmo Bai, widow of Late Shri Karan Singh and was not being disbursed to Parmo Bai, widow of Halke, who was the actual beneficiary and for whom the pension was sanctioned. Copy of the report of Chief Executive Officer is on record as Annexure R-2. If, the actual beneficiary of the pension was not available, the amount of pension ought to have been refunded to the Janpad Panchayat Sanchi. Even if, Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh was found entitled to receive the pension amount under Nirashrit Pension Yojna, a separate course of action ought to have been resorted to get the pension sanctioned in her name. Thus, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat as well as the petitioner misappropriated the Government money by disbursing it to an unauthorised person. Thus, the petitioner is rightly found responsible and is being removed accordingly. Order of removal was rightly passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which has already been confirmed by the Additional Collector as well as the Commissioner. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in the light of material on record, the facts which emerge are that the petitioner was duly appointed as Panchayat Karmi vide resolution dated 19.11.1995 marked as Annexure P-4. He was appointed as Panchayat Karmi vide order dated 19.11.1995 marked as Annexure P-5. He was notified as Secretary by the Collector Raisen in exercise of powers under section 69 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam" for brevity). Samajik Suraksha Pension was sanctioned to Parmo Bai widow of Halke. On 2.10.1996, Gram Panchayat Manpur found that Parmo Bai widow of Halke got remarried and left the village and made herself disqualified for the said pension. Samajik Suraksha Pension was sanctioned to Parmo Bai widow of Halke. On 2.10.1996, Gram Panchayat Manpur found that Parmo Bai widow of Halke got remarried and left the village and made herself disqualified for the said pension. Accordingly, it was resolved by the Gram Panchayat that the pension amount sanctioned in the name of Parmo Bai, widow of Halke, may be paid to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh. Copy of the resolution is on record as Annexure P-7. Phoola Bai, who was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Manpur, personally disbursed the amount of pension in accordance with the resolution to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh. 5. In reply to show cause, petitioner categorically stated that Parmo Bai, widow of Halke had left the village and got remarried. Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh was aged 70 years and made an application to the Gram Panchayat for grant of Samajik Suraksha Pension, which was allowed by the Gram Panchayat by the resolution Annexure P-2. Accordingly, amount of pension was disbursed to Parmo Bai, widow of Karan Singh by the Sarpanch herself and in her absence, the petitioner being Secretary in compliance of the order/direction of the Gram Panchayat disbursed the same. 6. Enquiry report of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sanchi is on record as Annexure R-2, wherein it was found that Parmo Bai, widow of Halke got remarried with Narayan son of Lalli Singh after the sanction of the pension and, accordingly, amount of pension sanctioned in her name was paid by Gram Panchayat to another widow namely, Parmi Bai, widow of Karan Singh of the same village. The Chief Executive Officer concluded that the amount of Samajit Suraksha Pension sanctioned in the name of Parmo Bai widow of Halke was paid to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singha and the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat Manpur, were responsible for it. On the basis of this report, learned Sub-Divisional Officer Raisen, issued the impugned order dated 24.8.1999 (Annexure P-l) of removal of petitioner from the post of Secretary on the ground that he has misused his post and has made payment of Samajik Suraksha Pension to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh without sanction. 7. On the basis of this report, learned Sub-Divisional Officer Raisen, issued the impugned order dated 24.8.1999 (Annexure P-l) of removal of petitioner from the post of Secretary on the ground that he has misused his post and has made payment of Samajik Suraksha Pension to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh without sanction. 7. Powers and functions of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat are prescribed' under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Powers and Functions of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President and Vice-President of Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules, clearly lays down that the Sarpanch shall be directly responsible for carrying out or getting to be carried out: "(a) the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat passed by it for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act; (b) .... (c) all functions assigned to the Gram Panchayat under section 49 of the Act." 8. Aforesaid provision clearly makes it out that the Sarpanch was responsible for carrying out or getting to be carried the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat. Resolution of Gram Panchayat Manpur is on record as Annexure P-7, thereby a decision was taken to make payment of Samajik Suraksha Pension, sanctioned in the name of Parmo Bai widow of Halke to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh on account of former having left the village by performing marriage. Sarpanch has also admitted in her affidavit marked as Annexure P-8, that the Gram Panchayat had resolved that Parmo Bai widow of Halke having incurred disqualification for grant of pension, Samajik Suraksha Pension sanctioned in her name may be paid to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh. The Sarpanch herself made disbursement of the pension to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh as admitted by her in her affidavit marked as Annexure P-8. Only during her absence, Samajik Suraksha Pension was paid to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh in accordance to the resolution and direction of the Gram Panchayat. Petitioner being the Secretary of Gram Panchayat obeyed the direction of the Sarpanch which was in accordance with the resolution of Gram Panchayat. 9. Only during her absence, Samajik Suraksha Pension was paid to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh in accordance to the resolution and direction of the Gram Panchayat. Petitioner being the Secretary of Gram Panchayat obeyed the direction of the Sarpanch which was in accordance with the resolution of Gram Panchayat. 9. However, this case is to be viewed from two additional angles, firstly, whether the Gram Panchayat was empowered to divert the amount of pension sanctioned to another lady and, secondly, whether the petitioner being the Secretary of Gram Panchayat was obliged to give effect to the resolution without having an independent valid opinion. 10. Samajik Suraksha Yojna introduced by the State and Rashtriya Vriddhavastha Pension Yojna of the Central Government were unified by the Social Welfare Department/Mantralaya of Government of Madhya Pradesh vide its order dated F-1/59/95/26-2 dated 25.6.1996. Accordingly, a guiding scheme was introduced by the said department on 4.9.1996. Clause (1) prescribes the requisites for entitlement to receive the pension, whereas, clause (2) defines destitute persons. Clause (4) provides the procedure for making application for pension, whereas, clause (5) lays down the specific procedure for sanction of pension. Accordingly, a guiding scheme was introduced by the said department on 4.9.1996. Clause (1) prescribes the requisites for entitlement to receive the pension, whereas, clause (2) defines destitute persons. Clause (4) provides the procedure for making application for pension, whereas, clause (5) lays down the specific procedure for sanction of pension. Clause (5) of the said order is reproduced herein below: ^^¼5½ isU"ku eatwj djus dh izfØ;k % 1- "kgjh {ks= dh n"kk esa uxj fuxe@uxjikfydk@uxj iapk;r rFkk xzkeh.k {ks= esa tuin iapk;r esa izkIr vkosnui=ksa ds ijh{k.k mijkar eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh mUgsa viuh Vhi ds lkFk tuin vFkok uxjfuxe@uxjikfydk@uxj iapk;r dh vxyh cSBd esa fu.kZ; gsrq izLrqr djsaxsA 2- "kgjh {ks= dh n"kk esa uxjfuxe@uxjikfydk@uxj iapk;r rFkk xzkeh.k {ks= dh n"kk esa tuin iapk;r dks izkIr vkosnui=ksa ij lkekftd lqj{kk isU"ku Lohd`r@vLohd`r djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA fdarq tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk;ksa ds fy, vko";d gksxk fd dksbZ vkosnu vLohd`r djus dh n"kk esa mlds dkj.kksa dk Hkh mYys[k djsaA 3- Lohd`rdrkZ izkf/kdkjh dks iathd`r vkosnui= ij vkosnu dk;kZy; esa izkfIr ds vf/kdre 60 fnu ds vanj fu.kZ; ysdj vkosnd dks lwfpr djuk vko";d gksxkA isU"ku Lohd`r ;k vLohd`r djus laca/kh fu.kZ; dh lwpuk vkosnd dks izk:i 3 esa nh tk,xhA 4- isU"ku dh ik=rk gksus dh fLFkfr esa isa"ku jkf"k vkosnui= iath;u gksus ds ekg ls Lohd`r dh tk,xhA 5- lkekftd lqj{kk isU"ku izkIr dj jgs fujkfJr dh e`R;q gksus ;k vU;Fkk vik= ik, tkus dh lwpuk feyus ij vxys ekg ls isU"ku jkf"k dk Hkqxrku can dj fn;k tk,xkA xzke iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; ds lacaf/kr okMZ esEcj@ik'kZn ls vis{kk gS fd os isU"ku dh e`R;q gksrs gh tuin iapk;r dks@uxjh; fudk; dks lwpuk nsaxsA ¼xzke iapk;r ds lnL; xzke iapk;r ds ek/;e ls lwpuk nsaxsA½** 11. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the power to sanction Samajik Suraksha Pension (hereinafter referred to as "Pension" for brevity) is vested for the purposes of rural area in Janpad Panchayat alone and Gram Panchayat had no power to sanction such pension in the name of any person though he/she may be entitled to it under the guidelines. Pension was earlier sanctioned in the name of Parmo Bai widow of Halke. On her leaving the area of Gram Panchayat and further getting remarried, a resolution was passed determining her pension which ought to have been forwarded or at least informed to the Janpad Panchayat as required under sub-clause (5) of clause 5. Pension was earlier sanctioned in the name of Parmo Bai widow of Halke. On her leaving the area of Gram Panchayat and further getting remarried, a resolution was passed determining her pension which ought to have been forwarded or at least informed to the Janpad Panchayat as required under sub-clause (5) of clause 5. However, in no case, the Gram Panchayat could have itself diverted the amount of pension payable to Parmo Bai widow of Halke to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh. Procedure for seeking pension is provided in clause (4) which lays down that an application by the concerning applicant ought to have been submitted in prescribed format to the Janpad Panchayat. Such applications received by the Gram Panchayat were required to be forwarded to the Janpad Panchayat within seven days with its comments after the necessary enquiry. Gram Panchayat itself had no power to entertain an application for grant of pension and to take a decision in the matter. Thus, the action of Gram Panchayat to divert the pension of Parmo Bai widow of Halke to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh and its payment to latter is without jurisdiction. This action of the Gram Panchayat being in contravention of the guidelines, cannot be treated as justified, more so, because there is no provision wherefrom Gram Panchayat may be said to have derived such powers. 12. Although, a resolution vide Annexure P-7 was passed by the Gram Panchayat Manpur, to make payment of pension sanctioned in the name of Parmo Bai widow of Halke to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh, a crucial question would be whether the petitioner was bound to give effect to this resolution. Powers and functions of the Secretary of Gram Panchayat are prescribed in Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Powers and Functions of the Secretary) Rules, 1999, which were published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 22.6.1999. Official duties of the Secretary are prescribed in rule 4. It would be interesting to take note of clause (1) which runs as follows: "4(1). Give correct advice, to Sarpanch, members of the Gram Panchayat and members of Gram Sabha on the basis of the Act and the rules made thereunder and to draw their attention in case of any work, resolution, which is against the provisions of Act or Rules made thereunder." 13. Give correct advice, to Sarpanch, members of the Gram Panchayat and members of Gram Sabha on the basis of the Act and the rules made thereunder and to draw their attention in case of any work, resolution, which is against the provisions of Act or Rules made thereunder." 13. In view of the aforesaid clause, it is no more necessary for the Secretary to act in the direction of execution or implementation of the resolution if it is against the provisions of Act or Rules made thereunder. This Court shall not detain on this point any more because aforesaid Rules including the said clause came into force with effect from 22.6.1999, whereas, the resolution contained in Annexure P-7 was passed on 2.10.1996. No provision of law has been brought before this Court which required at that time the Panchayat Secretary to use his own wisdom, contrary to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, the Sarpanch herself had disbursed the pension to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh and it is only in her absence that the petitioner might have disbursed the amount of pension on few occasions to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh, in accordance with the resolution contained in Annexure P-7. 14. Accordingly, the petitioner is not found to have misused his post. He has merely made the compliance of the resolution as well as direction of Gram Panchayat and its Sarpanch he has, obviously not made any personal gain. Even the Chief Executive Officer Raisen has given a finding that the amount of pension sanctioned in the name of Parmo Bai widow of Halke has been paid to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh. Thus, the petitioner is not found to have misappropriated the money for his own benefit. In case, if, there is any incorrect or illegal resolution, the same ought to have been dealt with in exercise of powers under section 85 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. State Government or the prescribed authority could have well suspended the execution of the resolution Annexure P-7. 15. It is not the case of the respondents in its return that the said resolution was ever suspended or cancelled. In the absence of any such situation, petitioner is not found to have acted illegally in making compliance of the resolution. State Government or the prescribed authority could have well suspended the execution of the resolution Annexure P-7. 15. It is not the case of the respondents in its return that the said resolution was ever suspended or cancelled. In the absence of any such situation, petitioner is not found to have acted illegally in making compliance of the resolution. On the contrary, he would have made himself liable for non-compliance of the resolution and would have exposed himself to an action against him by the Gram Panchayat. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisen, appellate and revisional authorities are not found to have considered the aforesaid aspects of law while passing the impugned order. Petitioner is found to have acted with good faith while making payment of pension in accordance with the resolution to Parmo Bai widow of Karan Singh who was not found by the authorities to be not entitled to Nirashrit Pension. 16. It may be seen that the order of removal of the petitioner was passed on 24.8.1999, whereas, Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, were published and enforced with effect from 22.6.1999. Sub-rule (3) of rule 1 of the Rules reads as under: "(3) 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 : Provided that nothing in these rules shall apply to officers and servants of the State service who are posted under the Panchayats under section 69 or are on lone service to the Panchayats under section 71 of the Act." Member of Panchayat Service or a Panchayat Servant is defined in clause (f) of rule 2 which is as follows: "(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." Petitioner having been appointed as Panchayat Karmi and thereafter notified as Panchayat Secretary falls within the ambit of member of Panchayat service or Panchayat servant as defined in clause (f) supra. Removal from service of the petitioner falls in sub-clause (6) of clause (b) of rule 5, which is a major penalty. Procedure for imposing major penalty is provided in rule 7. Removal from service of the petitioner falls in sub-clause (6) of clause (b) of rule 5, which is a major penalty. Procedure for imposing major penalty is provided in rule 7. This procedure was not followed in the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the charge-sheet required under sub-rule (2) of rule 7, was not issued at all. Thus, the impugned order being in contravention of these rules are also not otherwise sustainable in law. 17. In the result, the writ petition deserves to succeed and is, hereby, allowed accordingly. Impugned orders marked as Annexure P-1 to P-3 are, hereby, quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner. No order as to costs.