Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1301 (MP)

Prakash Chandra v. Anokhilal

2011-11-17

S.C.SHARMA

body2011
ORDER 1. Regard being had to the similar controversy involved in these two cases they have heard analogously together with the consent of the parties and a common order is being passed in the matter. Facts of writ petiton No. 1291/2005 are narrated as under : 2. Petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the Commissioner and order dated 19.1.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Ratlam, by which the status of the respondent No. 1 as a Panchayat Karmi has been restored. 3. Petitioner’s contention is that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi on 15.12.1995 and a resolution was passed by the Gram Sabha on 29.8.2000 for discounting the respondent No. 1 from service. Petitioner has further stated that an appeal was preferred by respondent No. 1 before the Sub-Divisional Officer against the termination and the Sub-Divisional Officer, has allowed the appeal by an order dated 9.4.2001. However, the matter was remanded back to the Gram Sabha for passing a fresh resolution. Petitioner has further stated that during the pendency of the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi by an order dated 12.4.2001 and he was conferred with the secretarial powers keeping in view section 64 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 on 24.4.2001. Petitioner has further stated that a fresh resolution was passed by the Gram Sabha on 2.10.2003 as directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer upholding the termination of the respondent No. 1. Petitioner has further stated that respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by an order dated 9.4.2001, by which the matter was remanded back to the Gram Sabha for passing a fresh resolution has preferred a revision before the Collector, Ratlam and the additional Collector, Ratlam by an order dated 19.1.2004 has directed the reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 as the resolution itself was to be void ab initio. Petitioner has further stated that an appeal was preferred by the Gram Panchayat before the learned Commissioner, Ujjain division, Ujjain and the Commissioner by an order dated 28.2.2005 has upheld the order passed by the Collector, meaning thereby the reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 has been affirmed. Petitioner has further stated that an appeal was preferred by the Gram Panchayat before the learned Commissioner, Ujjain division, Ujjain and the Commissioner by an order dated 28.2.2005 has upheld the order passed by the Collector, meaning thereby the reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 has been affirmed. Petitioner’s contention is that he was not heard by the Collector nor by the Commissioner, at any point of time and once he has been appointed against he clear vacant post, his services could not have been dispensed with by the Collector or by the Commissioner as has been done in the present case. Learned counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the petitioner could not have been discontinued from service, without granting an opportunity of hearing. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondent No. 1 and the stand of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is that against his termination order dated 29.8.2000, an appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Office has arrived at the conclusion that the resolution recommending the termination of the petitioner was bad in law for want of quorum and therefore once the resolution itself was held to be bad, there was no justification on the part of the Sub-Divisional Officer in remanding the matter back to the Gram Panchayat. He has argued before this Court that the against the limited portion of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, by which the matter was remanded to Gram Panchayat a Revision was preferred before the Collector and the Collector has rightly directed reinstatement of the petitioner and the Commissioner has also rightly upheld the order of the Collector dated 28.2.2005. Respondent No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Learned Government Advocate has also argued before this Court that petition deserves to be dismissed as the Collector and the Commissioner have rightly passed the order dated 19.1.2004 and order dated 28.2.2005 respectively. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the meeting of the Gram Sabha while passing a resolution was not having a proper quorum as held by the Sub-Divisioanl Officer vide order dated 9.4.2009. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the meeting of the Gram Sabha while passing a resolution was not having a proper quorum as held by the Sub-Divisioanl Officer vide order dated 9.4.2009. The Sub-Divisional Officer, once the meeting was declared illegal could not have remanded the matter back to the Gram Sabha without quashing the order of termination and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Collector dated 1.9.2004 does not warrant any interference as Collector has rightly held that the termination order passed by the Gram Sabha dated 29.8.2000 was bad in law as the Gram Sabha was not having a proper quorum to pass a resolution. Commissioner has also rightly upheld the order passed by the Collector by passing an order dated 28.2.2005. It is pertinent to note that the prescribed procedure was also not followed by the Gram Panchayat while terminating the respondent No. 1. No charge sheet of any kind was issued to the respondnet No. 1 nor any enquiry was held. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman v. State of M.P. and others, repoted in 2008 (II) MPWN 101 = 2008 (3) MPLJ 394 has held that the prescribed procedure has to be followed while terminating the services of Panchayat Karmi and therefore keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman (supra) as the prescribed procedure was not followed while putting an end to the services of respondent No. 1, this Court is of the considered opinion that the termination order of respondent No. 1 was void ab initio and therefore the question of interference with the order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the Commissioner and the order dated 1.9.2004 passed by the Collector, does not arise. Respondent are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service. Respondent are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service. In the present case it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on 12.4.2001 and he was conferred with the secretarial powers on 24.4.2001, in exercise of powers conferred u/s. section 64 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and he was declared as a permenant Panchayat Karmi by passing an order dated 3.6.2009, meaning thereby he is serving as a permanent Panchayat Karmi in the State of Madhya Pradesh and he was never heard at any point of time by the Sub-Divisional Officer, by the Commissioner or by the Collector and therefore keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Collector, Ratlam as well as Commissioner, Ujjain are directed to explore the possibility and to adjust the petitioner in any of the Gram Panchayat under their control treating this case to be an exceptional case especially in view of the fact that the petitioner is a permanent Panchayat Secretary and is serving the State for the last ten years. This order shall not be treated as a precedent. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of.