JUDGMENT 1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus/ certiorari seeking following reliefs:- 'i) That, the orders annexure P/1, P/2 and P/3 may kindly be quashed/ set aside with full consequential benefits. ii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including costs may also be granted.' 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was working on the posts of Gram Rozgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Mohammadpur, Block Chachoda, District Guna. At the relevant point of time, one complaint was lodged by one Pappulal that a Well under Kapildhara Scheme has been sanctioned in his name in Survey No. 16/3 and 19/3 and as per the contents of complaint, he does not own any land over such survey numbers and therefore, forged payments in his name are being made and Well has been excavated and constructed in survey Nos. 16/3 and 19/3. Said complaint was forwarded to the Project Officer, then CEO, Zila Panchayat himself enquired into the complaint and prepared the report dated 7/3/2020 in which it has been mentioned that Well has been constructed in survey No. 16/3 but it is not owned by complainant Pappulal. 3. After preparing the said report dated 7/3/2020 without any further notice or any opportunity to the petitioner, CEO, Zila Panchayat, respondent No. 2 herein, took oral orders of the Collector to terminate the services of petitioner and vide order dated 13/3/2020 passed by CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Chachoda, District Guna (respondent No. 3 herein)services of petitioner were terminated. Petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 (being the appellate authority) but met the same fate and grounds raised by petitioner were not considered. Thereafter, petitioner preferred second appeal before Commissioner, Gwalior Division. During pendency of second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, matter was enquired by the Additional Collector in which it has been found that there was no wrongful act done by petitioner because complainant was the owner of the land, still second appeal was rejected by the appellate authority. 4. Thereafter, petitioner preferred second appeal before Commissioner, Gwalior Division. During pendency of second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, matter was enquired by the Additional Collector in which it has been found that there was no wrongful act done by petitioner because complainant was the owner of the land, still second appeal was rejected by the appellate authority. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that said complainant Pappulal had submitted an application and affidavit for getting the Well sanctioned vide Annexure P/7 with the petition and Well was duly sanctioned by the Gram Sabha vide proceedings filed as Annexure P/8 and sanction order was issued by Sarpanch vide Annexure P/9. Said Pappulal was owner of the land in question which is reflected from the sale deed dated 22/3/2019executed in his favour by sellers Gulabbai, Munnalal, Gopal, Omprakash, Ramswaroop and Rajesh Meena and said land vide survey No. 16/3 and 19/3 was sold to Gajrajsingh Meena and Pappulal Meena, therefore, complainant Pappulal was one of the co-owners of the land in question. Since mutation was not held, therefore, his name was not mentioned in revenue records but on the basis of sale deed, he was the owner of the disputed property and therefore, it was not a case, where, Well was not constructed or Well was constructed in some other name or other place. Just to harass the petitioner, this device has been adopted by complainant Pappulal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the enquiry report dated 19/5/2020 which was placed before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division while considering the second appeal and said report was placed vide letter dated 26/6/2020 by CEO, Zila Panchayat, Guna vide Annexure P/5 but appellate authority ignored the same and continued the illegality carried by other authorities. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred the legal position that respondents No. 2 and 3 being the disciplinary and the first appellate authority acted at the instance of Collector, therefore, competent authority cannot act on the behest of another authority. He relied upon decision of Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Maharaj Dharmendra Pratap Singh, 1989 (2) SCC 505 , Whirlphool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1 Panchamchand Vs. state of Himachal Pradesh, (2008) 7 SCC 117 and decision of this Court in the matter if Smt. Makhano Kori Vs. Maharaj Dharmendra Pratap Singh, 1989 (2) SCC 505 , Whirlphool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1 Panchamchand Vs. state of Himachal Pradesh, (2008) 7 SCC 117 and decision of this Court in the matter if Smt. Makhano Kori Vs. State of M.P., 2011 (2) MPHT 118 . Neither any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner nor any charge sheet was issued nor any show cause notice was issued; whereas, as per the circulation of GAD dated 5th June, 2018 (Annexure P/18) and later on vide guidelines dated 2nd July, 2020 (Annexure P/19) issued by Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag, opportunity of hearing is must. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer by filing reply. He relied upon the report dated 7/3/2020 to submit that petitioner was found to be guilty of misappropriation of funds. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations regarding directions given by higher authorities before issuance of impugned orders. Petitioner did not cooperate in enquiry, therefore, his services were rightly terminated. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. Rejoinder and additional reply were also filed to substantiate respective arguments. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto. 9. This is a case, where, petitioner faced termination on the basis of allegations that a Well was constructed under Kapildhara Scheme over a land different then earmarked. But on close scrutiny, it appears that this is not the case where complainant Pappulal R/o Mohammadpur, Janapad Chachoda made a complaint on 26/2/2020 vide Annexure P/6 and contents of complaint indicate that he made a specific averment that Well has been constructed in survey No. 16/3 and 19/3 which is owned by Gulalbai Wd/o Devilal and other owners. In fact, it appears that complaint was a mis-statement because sale deed referred by petitioner vide Annexure P/13 dated 22/3/2019 is a registered sale deed, therefore, no doubt can be raised regarding its execution and contents. 10. Perusal of same reveals that sale deed in respect of survey Nos. 16/3 and 19/3 of village Mohammadpur has been executed by Gulabbai and other owners as referred above in favour of Gajrajsingh Meena and Pappulal Meena, both resident of village Mohammadpur, therefore, almost a year before in year 2019 itself petitioner was owner of the land in question. 10. Perusal of same reveals that sale deed in respect of survey Nos. 16/3 and 19/3 of village Mohammadpur has been executed by Gulabbai and other owners as referred above in favour of Gajrajsingh Meena and Pappulal Meena, both resident of village Mohammadpur, therefore, almost a year before in year 2019 itself petitioner was owner of the land in question. This fact has again surfaced in the report dated 19/5/2020 (Annexure P/5) of Additional Collector and Deputy Collector, District Guna in which it has been specifically mentioned that Gajrajsingh and Pappulal are owners of the land in question but since their land was mortgaged with Rural Bank, therefore, mutation in their names has not been caused and the said report categorically mentions that Well was constructed over survey No. 16/3 itself and discriminatory action has been taken against the petitioner. Therefore, it appears that Pappulal was playing mischief by exerting pressure over the petitioner purportedly for extraneous consideration because at the time of making complaint on 26/2/2020, he was well aware of the fact that sale deed has been executed long before on 22/3/2019 in his favour. In fact it is complainant Pappulal who should be taken to task rather than petitioner. 11. Perusal of various documents indicate that Well was constructed over the land vide survey Nos. 16/3/ and 19/3, therefore, it is not the case of embezzlement of any public money or fraud committed. When Well was properly constructed then making false complaint amounts to lowering down the moral of govt. employee and authorities below did not consider the same and passed orders in slipshod manner and caused illegality, perversity and arbitrariness. 12. Impugned order dated 13/3/2020 (Annexure P/3) indicates that CEO, Zila Panchayat, Guna vide letter dated 13/3/2020 directed the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Chachoda to remove the petitioner from the service and thereafter CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Chachoda on same day i.e. 13/3/2020 passed the impugned order terminating the services of petitioner. Therefore, at the instance of appellate authority, the decision of removal of petitioner had been taken. Therefore, at the instance of appellate authority, the decision of removal of petitioner had been taken. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh and Others, 1989 (2) SCC 505 has given guidelines in such circumstances as under:- '55.It is true that in exercise of powers of revoking or cancelling the permission is akin to and partakes of a quasi- judicial complexion and that in exercising of the former power the authority must bring to bear an unbiased mind, consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party and decide the matter consistent with the principles of natural justice. The authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then not be the authority's discretion that is exercised, but someone else's. If an authority "hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra vires". Such an interference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority. De Smith sums up the position thus: The relevant principles formulated by the courts may be broadly summarised as follows. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. In general, a discretion must be exercised only by the authority to which it is committed. That authority must genuinely address itself to the matter before it: it must not act under the dictation of another body or disable itself from exercising a discretion in each individual case. In the purported exercise of its discretion it must not do what it has been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not been authorised to do. It must act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant considerations and must not be swayed by irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote purposes alien to the letter or to the spirit of the legislation that gives it power to act, and must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Nor where a judgment must be made that certain facts exist can a discretion be validly exercised on the basis of an erroneous assumption about those facts. Nor where a judgment must be made that certain facts exist can a discretion be validly exercised on the basis of an erroneous assumption about those facts. These several principles can conveniently be grouped in two main categories: failure to exercise a discretion, and excess or abuse of discretionary power. The two classes are not, however, mutually exclusive.' 13. Same spirit has been echoed in the case of Pancham Chand and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 2008 (7) SCC 117 . This Court in the case of Smt. Makhano Kori vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2011 (2) M.P.H.T. 118 allowed the writ petition filed by then petitioner therein on same ground wherein authority did not exercise the discretion independently on its own. Here in the present case, CEO, Janpad Panchayat acted on the directions of CEO, Zila Panchayat, Guna. He did not exercise the discretion and jurisdiction vested into him independently on his own. He acted at the behest of the superior authority. 14. Therefore, considering all these facts and circumstances of the case and taking cue from the judgments referred above, it is apparently clear that in the present case, not only fundamental rights of petitioner to pursue occupation is violated but the impugned order violates principles of natural justice also. 15. Here in the present case incidently, CEO, Zila Panchayat was the appellate authority and it passed the order in first appeal vide order dated 23/4/2020 and illegality continued before the second appeal stage i.e. Commissioner, Gwalior Division. During pendency of second appeal enquiry was held and vide enquiry report dated 19/5/2020, Additional Collector and Deputy Collector, District Guna exonerated the petitioner from the allegations and placed the correct facts on record but ignoring the same, second appellate authority did not mend the ways in the interest of justice and caused illegality. 16. Resultantly, all three impugned orders vide Annexure P/1, P/2 and P/3 deserve to be set aside on the basis referred above and are hereby set aside. Consequently, respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders for renewal of contract of petitioner, if no other enquiry/disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. Since, services of petitioner were terminated not because of his fault of any nature but it was a motivated complaint by the complainant Pappulal, therefore, petitioner is held entitled for 50% back wages. Consequently, respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders for renewal of contract of petitioner, if no other enquiry/disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. Since, services of petitioner were terminated not because of his fault of any nature but it was a motivated complaint by the complainant Pappulal, therefore, petitioner is held entitled for 50% back wages. Respondents are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against complainant Pappulal for making false complaint prima facie and directed to hold an enquiry against him and if he is found guilty of false complaint then appropriate civil/criminal proceedings be initiated against him for making reckless allegations and motivated allegations against govt. employee. 17. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.