Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1257 (MP)

Dharamadas Ahirwar v. State of M. P.

2017-12-12

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2017
ORDER 1. The petitioner who was a Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Para, Janpad Panchayat, Bada Malehra District Chhatarpur has challenged the termination order dated 23.2.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 Collector, Chhatarpur. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the aforesaid post on 30.10.1995 and was regularized on 1.4.2008. On 9.4.2014 he was issued a show cause notice by the Project Officer M.G.N.R.I.G.S. M.P. Janpad Panchayat Bada Malehra with the stipulation that during the financial year 2006-07 an amount of Rs.1,38,33,862/- was withdrawn under the Manrega Scheme whereas the valuation of proposed work was only Rs.1,00,91,054/- and thus there was a shortfall of Rs.37,42,808/- which the petitioner has misappropriated, hence why the recovery of the said amount be not made from the petitioner by initiating RRC proceeding. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner was suspended. On 23.7.2014. On 4.8.2014 he was issued a charge sheet by the respondent No. 3 Additional Collector (;Development) Chief Executive Officer, Chhatarpur and he was directed to file his reply within a period of 15 days. In the charge sheet certain allegations were made against the petitioner that he did not file any reply to show cause notice issued to him on 9.4.2014 for recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs.37,42,808/-. The petitioner filed a detailed reply of the same on 19.8.2014. Thereafter, despite issuance of charge sheet on 4.8.2014 no progress was made in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, hence vide order dated 4.7.2015 he was recommended to be reinstated in service but thereafter also no action was taken by respondents and the departmental enquiry was kept pending for no apparent reason nor he was reinstated, hence Writ Petition No. 8519/2016 was filed by him before this Court challenging the order of suspension and this Court vide order dated 12.5.2016 directed the respondents to take a decision on the question of continuance of suspension within 30 days and also decide the departmental enquiry within six months. In pursuance thereof, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report wherein charges against the petitioner were found to be established, hence vide order dated 30.6.2016 the respondents also decided not to revoke his order of suspension. 4. In pursuance thereof, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report wherein charges against the petitioner were found to be established, hence vide order dated 30.6.2016 the respondents also decided not to revoke his order of suspension. 4. The petitioners further contention is that since no action was taken by the respondents in respect of his departmental enquiry, he also made representation in this behalf on 24.8.2016 and, thereafter, on 15.2.2017 the respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to mark his appearance in the office of Janpad on 16.2.2017 i.e. in a day as time. On 17.2.2017 itself the witnesses were examined holding the charge of misappropriation levelled against the petitioner proved and, thereafter, without giving any notice to the petitioner and without calling his reply on the point of punishment and without giving any opportunity of hearing, he was dismissed from the post of Panchayat Secretary. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in violation of principles of natural justice, hence the order dated 23.2.2017 is liable to be quashed. 6. In return the respondents contention is that the petitioner himself was negligent in participating in the proceeding which is also apparent from the letter dated 15.2.2017 whereby the petitioner was asked to mark his appearance on 16.2.2017 with certain documents. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid notice dated 15.2.2017. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in the aforesaid letter itself the petitioner has expressed his intention that he was not participating in such proceeding and has submitted that he has already submitted all the documents as required by the respondents and in view of the aforesaid letter, the respondents had no option but to initiate departmental enquiry and complete it expeditiously as directed by this Court and in pursuance of the same statement of one witness Dinesh Jain, Sub-Engineer was also recorded who has also confirmed that the work was not completed as claimed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the record, it is apparent that this Court in Writ Petiltion No.8519/2016 vide order dated 12.5.2016 had directed the respondents to take a decision in respect of the question of continuance of suspension within 30 days and also complete the departmental enquiry within six months, and in pursuance thereof the notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.2.2017 i.e. after a period of nine months and he was directed to mark his appearance on 16.2.2017 along with the documents. It is true that this Court had directed the respondents to complete the departmental proceedings within a period of six months but no order was passed by the respondents even after the aforesaid period of six months. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the notice dated 15.2.2017 where by the petitioner was directed to marks his presence along with documents on 16.2.2017 is an appropriate notice to initiate enquiry against the petitioner and not only that, the time, which was given to the petitioner i.e. one day cannot be said to be an adequate by any means. It is further observed that the respondents had also called the Assistant Engineer Dinesh Jain for recording his evidence, who had also given a brief statement alleging irregularities on the part of the petitioner, and since the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and to cross examine such witness, hence such proceeding is clearly vitiated due to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 23.2.2017 is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondents to issue an appropriate notice of hearing to the petitioner and grant due opportunity of hearing to lead evidence and thereafter pass the final order. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.