Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 364 (MP)

MARU BAI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2017-03-10

VIVEK RUSIA

body2017
ORDER : VIVEK RUSIA, J. 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2016 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by Managing Director, M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board has been affirmed. 2. Facts of the case are as under. Petitioner was elected as member of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Karhi, district Khargone vide election and notification dated 24.12.2012. Thereafter the election was held for the post of Chairman and Vice Chairman in the meeting of 12 elected members and the petitioner was elected as Chairman. 3. That the petitioner's son Dilip Sitole has started interfering in the works of the Mandi. He used to come in the premises and dictate terms and conditions to the Mandi employees as if he is Chairman of Mandi. It has become regular feature for him to interfere in the functioning of the Mandi. Vide letter dated 4.2.2015 the Secretary of the Mandi has made a complaint to the Joint Director and simultaneously lodged an FIR in the Police Station, Karhi regarding use of filthy language and assault to Shri Tatware, Assistant Sub Inspector, Mandi. Vide letter dated 2.11.2015 the Secretary has directed the petitioner's son not to enter into the Mandi premises followed by notice dated 5.2.2016. When all these notices did not control his illegal activities within Mandi premises the Managing Director (MD) in exercise of his powers under section 55 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why she be not removed from the post of Chairman as she has failed to control the illegal activities of her son. Petitioner submitted reply dated 8.11.2016 of the show cause notice that all these false complaints have been made by the opposite party to malign her image and the show cause notice is liable to be cancelled. 4. Vide order dated 7.4.2016 on the basis of the enquiry report dated 16.10.16 considering the reply of the petitioner the Managing Director has removed the petitioner from the post of Chairman and debarred her for a period of six years to contest the election of the Mandi as member. 5. Initially petitioner preferred a writ petition against the order dated 7.4.16. Vide order dated 11.5.2016 the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition before the revisional authority. 5. Initially petitioner preferred a writ petition against the order dated 7.4.16. Vide order dated 11.5.2016 the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition before the revisional authority. In compliance of the aforesaid order petitioner preferred revision to the Commissioner, Indore. It appears that the Commissioner is not the revisional authority and the State Govt is the appellate authority under section 59 of the Adhiniyam, therefore, the revision of the petitioner was taken up by the State Govt as an appeal and vide order dated 1.10.16 the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of M.D has been affirmed, hence the present petition before this Court. 6. After notice the Mandi Board has filed return and submitted that the petitioner being an elected member and holding democratic post has failed to take any action against her son who was interfering in day to day affairs of Mandi, therefore, the M.D had no option but to remove her from the post of Chairman. Petitioner was given opportunity to submit reply and after considering the reply and detailed enquiry report the impugned order was passed. Section 55 did not contemplate detailed enquiry in which parties have to adduce evidence. 7. Respondent No. 3 Krishi Upaj Mandi also filed detailed return in which it is submitted that the Mandi Secretary has received various complaints from all the employees of the Mandi regarding their harassment done by the petitioner's son. All the Mandi employees have signed the complaint which is filed as Annexure R/3-1. On the basis of the complaint the Assistant Director, Mandi Board has directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit its report. The Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Sub Division Maheshwar was appointed as enquiry officer, who took the statements of all the employees of the Mandi and they have unanimously recorded their statement about the conduct of the petitioner's son. All these statements have been cumulatively filed as Annexure R/3-5 along with the return. On the basis of these statements a report was submitted to the Joint Director who then issued the show cause notice to the petitioner and after reply the order of removal was passed. Vide order dated 18.4.16 the charge of the Chairman has been taken from the petitioner. On the basis of these statements a report was submitted to the Joint Director who then issued the show cause notice to the petitioner and after reply the order of removal was passed. Vide order dated 18.4.16 the charge of the Chairman has been taken from the petitioner. Vice Chairman of the Mandi Ramchandra Patidar has been given the charge of Chairman vide letter dated 27.4.16. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 9. Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner regarding the misconduct committed by her son while performing the duties of the Chairman of the Mandi. When there are no allegations then she cannot be removed from the post for the conduct of her son. The action of the respondent is beyond the provisions of section 55 and the same is liable to be set aside. Petitioner was not given ample opportunity of hearing to defend herself. The appellate authority has also not considered the grounds raised in the appeal and by non speaking order without appreciating the grounds appeal has been dismissed. The order of the M.D as well as State Govt are liable to be set aside. 10. Counsel for the respondents refuted the arguments of the petitioner and submitted that the action taken by the authorities are well within their jurisdiction and within the scope of section 55 as the petitioner was incapable to perform her duties. 11. Petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Mandi on 7.1.13 and within four months a detailed complaint was received from the employees of the Mandi. Vide letter dated 20.5.13 they directly made complaint to the petitioner that her son is demanding Rs. 15000 to 20000 per month. He is also illegally demanding the vehicles of Mandi for his relatives and friends and interferes in the day to day functioning of the Mandi. All the employees were mentally harassed and compelled to work under the fear atmosphere. When no action was taken by the petitioner against her son then complaint was made to the Secretary of Mandi and Joint Director. The Joint Director has directed the Secretary to conduct an enquiry and submit the detailed report. All the employees were mentally harassed and compelled to work under the fear atmosphere. When no action was taken by the petitioner against her son then complaint was made to the Secretary of Mandi and Joint Director. The Joint Director has directed the Secretary to conduct an enquiry and submit the detailed report. During this period an FIR was also lodged against the son of the petitioner as he manhandled the Assistant Sub Inspector of the Mandi and abused him by filthy language. The Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer who is an independent authority has issued notice to all the employees for recording their deposition. All the employees unanimously have deposed against the conduct of the petitioner's son. On the basis of statements and material available a detailed report was submitted. 12. On the basis of the detailed report Managing Director, Mandi Board has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering her reply the impugned order of removal from the post was passed. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order solely on the ground that section 55 contemplates detailed enquiry unless a finding is recorded against the conduct of the Chairman itself and she cannot be removed. Section 55 of the Adhiniyam is reproduced below: 55. Removal of member, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of market committee.- [1] The Managing Director may on his own motion or on a resolution passed by a majority of two-third of the members constituting the market committee for the time being remove any member of the market committee for misconduct or neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty and on such removal he shall not be re-elected or re-nominated as a member of the market committee for a period of six years from the date of such removal: Provided that no order of such removal shall be passed unless such member has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be passed. (2) The Managing Director may remove any Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a market committee from his office, for misconduct, or neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty or for being persistently remiss in the discharge of his duties and on such removal the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, shall not be eligible for reelection as Chairman or Vice-Chairman during the remainder of this term of office as member of market committee: Provided that no order of removal shall be passed unless the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be passed. (3) The State Government may suspend any member or Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a market committee, who has been served with the notice under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be, and against whom any complaints have been received or who commits irregularities after the service of such notice, for period from the date of receipt of complaint or the date of noticing of irregularities by the Managing Director till the final decision is taken in his case. 13. Under sub section 1 of section 55 the State Govt may on its own motion or on a resolution passed by the majority of the ? members of the committee may remove the Chairman or Vice Chairman for misconduct or negligence of his/her duties. Under sub section 2 the Director may remove any Chairman or Vice chairman of the marketing committee for misconduct or negligence or incapacity to perform his/her duties, as the case may be, meaning thereby the Chairman or Vice-Chairman can be removed either on misconduct or negligence to perform the duties or incapacity to perform the duties. In the present case the petitioner was negligent to perform her duties as she has failed to control her son who was interfering in the day to day functioning of the Mandi premises. Her case would also fall under the category of incapacity to perform her duties, therefore, not only on the misconduct but on the grounds of negligence or incapacity to perform her duties the Chairman can be removed. 14. Her case would also fall under the category of incapacity to perform her duties, therefore, not only on the misconduct but on the grounds of negligence or incapacity to perform her duties the Chairman can be removed. 14. So far the conduct of detailed enquiry under section 55 is concerned, the scope of section 55 came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Biharilal tikaram v. Government of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1983 MPLJ 553 and this Court has held that section 55 of the Adhiniyam does not speak for elaborate enquiry as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It says only a reasonable opportunity is to be given to the delinquent officer to show cause as to why the action be not taken against him. Again this Court in the case of Mangilal v. Sanchalak Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhopal reported in 1992 JLJ 193 has defined the word 'misconduct' used in section 55 of the Adhiniyam. Para-16 is reproduced below: 16. The acts charged and found to have been established, clearly fall within the purview of misconduct. 'Misconduct' is neither defined nor enumerated under the Act. It is a generic term, and means to conduct amiss, to mismanage, wrong or improper conduct, bad behaviour, unlawful behaviour or conduct. It includes malfeasance, misdemeanour, delinquency and offence 'misconduct' and 'negligence' are different notions, but some kind of negligence may amount to misconduct while some others may not. In the instant case the petitioner's conduct who enjoyed a position of trust in the market committee, can undoubtedly be said to be improper conduct, falling within the purview of misconduct. 15. Considering all the circumstances in totality it reveals that immediately after election of the petitioner as Chairman her son has started misusing the post of her mother i.e. the Chairman by interfering into the day to day functioning of the Mandi. He has started making illegal demand from the employees by threatening them. It has become regular feature in the elected body where the women are elected as Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, their close male relatives viz. Husband, son father etc. try to interfere in her working and project himself as they have been elected as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the local body. It has become regular feature in the elected body where the women are elected as Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, their close male relatives viz. Husband, son father etc. try to interfere in her working and project himself as they have been elected as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the local body. If this conduct is permitted then the very purpose of giving powers to the women by Constitution of India and Legislature would be frustrated. If the lady members of the family are elected then it is expected that she should perform the work for which she was elected by vote and if she fails to control her relatives from interfering in the working of the body in which she was elected to perform the statutory duties then she is liable to face the consequence. 16. In view of the above discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court respondents have not committed any error or travelled beyond their jurisdiction to take action against the petitioner. No interference is called for in the impugned order. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.