Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1489 (MP)

JITENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF M. P.

2014-11-18

ALOK ARADHE

body2014
ORDER : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, matter is heard finally. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of order dated 3-8-2006 as well as order dated 27-11-2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Collector respectively. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in the year 1995. The petitioner later on was notified on the post of Panchayat Secretary on 10-8-1999 by the Collector. The Gram Panchayat by resolution dated 9-10-2003, resolved to dispense with the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. Being aggrieved by the resolution the petitioner filed an appeal before Sub Divisional Officer, which was allowed vide order dated 8-12-2003, however, the aforesaid order reversed in appeal by the Collector, vide order dated 27-11-2004 and the order passed by the Collector has been affirmed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 3-8-2006. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that service conditions of the petitioner, is governed by M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). Rule 7 of the Rules provide that before imposing any major penalty departmental enquiry is required to be instituted against the delinquent employee, however in the instant case, service of the petitioner have been dispensed with in flagrant violation of Rule 7 of the Rules prescribed. The aforesaid fact has fairly not been disputed by learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. 5. For the reasons assigned by a Bench of this Court in Durganath Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2010) 3 MPLJ 384 , the impugned orders dated 3-8-2006 as well as order dated 27-11-2004 are quashed. In the result the writ petition is allowed. However, the respondent No. 2 would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.