JOHARA DAYAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13-1-1997 (Annexure P-18) passed by respondent No. 4. Additional Collector, Raipur and the order dated 24-7-1996 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No. 2, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authority, Saraipali, District Raipur so far as it relates to direction of recovery of the amount mentioned in that order.

(2.) THE petitioner Smt. Johara Dayal was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Basna, Block Basna, Tahsil Saraipali, District Raipur. It appears that the respondent No. 2, Sub-Divisional Officer received complaint against the petitioner regarding the certain illegalities and irregularities performed by her in her capacity as Sarpanch. It appears that respondent Nos. 5 to 9, the Panchas were also complainants against the petitioner. Accordingly, a show-cause notice under Section 40 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (henceforth 'the Adhiniyam') was issued against the petitioner. There were eight charges levelled against the petitioner. It is not necessary to reproduce the charge Nos. 2, 4 and 6, as they have not been found to be proved against the petitioner ultimately. The charge Nos. 1, 3 and 7 have been held to be partly proved and the charge Nos. 5 and 8 have been held to be fully proved by the respondent No. 2, Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 24-7-1996 (Annexure P-11 ). The following summary of the relevant charges, as given in the memo of petition, is hereby reproduced : Charge No, 1: The respondent No. 2, while dealing with charge No. 1, has himself arrived at the finding that if for any reason the Sarpanch is unable to call the meeting of the Gram Panchayat then in that event under Section 44 (4) of the Adhiniyam it is the responsibility of the Secretary to issue a notice of the meeting of the Panchayat concerned as soon as twenty five days elapse after the date of the last meeting. Further, the petitioner has also assigned the reason for not calling the meeting in the month of September, 1994, November, 1994 and February, 1995 as she was not keeping well and was at Raipur for her treatment and therefore, she instructed the Secretary to hold the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. It was further submitted that the meeting for the said period was called by the Secretary and the proceedings were separately recorded as the proceedings register was with the Panchayat Inspector. The petitioner has also stated that the separate register on which the proceedings of the meeting was recorded has been misplaced from the office by the erstwhile Secretary and Panchayat Inspector under political influence. Thus, the finding arrived by the respondent No. 2 is erroneous so far as it relates to the petitioner. Firstly, the meeting was called and secondly, even otherwise only the Secretary could be held responsible for the same. Charge No. 3: As regard charge No. 3, it is submitted that no finding is given by the respondent No, 2 and simply in the concluding para of the order he has held this charge to be partly proved. The petitioner has even otherwise explained that the quotation from M/s. Parekh Electricals was not called and the same has been obtained by the enquiry officer on his own and thus no reliance could have been placed on it. Charge No. 5 : The construction of the shops were done by the Panchas and it is the responsibility of the Secretary to guide the petitioner who is uneducated. Further, the loss which was assessed on verification and as alleged in the show-cause notice itself was found to be incorrect and thus it could not have been held to be proved against the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 has directed for reassessment of the construction cost and for recovery of the excess amount from the Secretary and the petitioner. It is surprising that on one hand the respondent No. 2 has directed for reassessment and on the other hand he has held the charge to be proved. Without there being reassessment, no finding on this charge could have been given. Charge No. 7: As regards charge No. 7, the petitioner has specifically stated that the work under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna was verified and valued by the Sub-Engineer of the Block. Even otherwise, it is only a procedural lapse for which the Secretary alone is responsible. Charge No. 8: As regards charge No. 8, nothing could be attributed to the petitioner and it is the responsibility of the Secretary to deposit the money in the account. For such procedural lapses, the petitioner could not have been held responsible. Further, no loss has been caused to the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) THE respondent No. 2, having held that the aforesaid charges have been proved, did not pass any order regarding the removal of the petitioner as per provisions of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam. All he did by the order dated 24-7-1996, is that he declared that the petitioner was found responsible alongwith the Secretary for the financial illegalities and irregularities proved under the aforesaid charges reproduced above and, therefore, he warned her requiring her to deposit the fine to the extent she had caused loss to the Panchayat by her illegal activities. This view was taken by the SDO presumably on the ground that the petitioner was a lady who was not properly guided by the Secretary of the Panchayat and, therefore, the SDO thought that the recovery of the amount from the petitioner whereby the petitioner caused loss to the Panchayat would be sufficient punishment to her alongwith a warning to take care in future.