SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. SANTOSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 5-11-2007 (Annexure-P/8) passed by respondent No. 3 in Case No. F.5-65/22/Panchayat-2/07, whereby the order passed by the Collector dated 5-2-2007 (Annexure-P/1) denotifying respondent No. 1 as Panchayat Secreary affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 5-6-2007 (Annexure-P/2) has been set aside.

(2.) It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 was appointed as Panchayat Karmi and declared as Panchayat Secretary by the competent authority i.e. Collector under section 69(1) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Act'). Thereafter a complaint was made by the Sarpanch against him to CEO, Zila Panchayat, whereupon the fact finding enquiry was conducted by the CEO, Zila Panchayat. The report thereof is available on record produced before this Court. After such enquiry, a show cause notice was issued on 28-9-2006 specifying the findings of the Chief Executive Officer and to explain why he should not be removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi. On filing reply the authority competent i.e. Collector has passed an order dated 5-2-2007 (Annexure-P/1) denotifying the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Bharjuna Khurd. Against the said order an appeal before the Commissioner was filed who affirmed the order passed by the Collector and the findings as recorded by him. Against the said order second revision was preferred before the State Minister which was allowed by the Order dated 5-11-2007 (Annexure-P/8) and the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner has been set aside.

(3.) It is submitted by Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, that theorders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner have been set aside byrespondent No. 3 on the pretext that the procedure prescribed for denotificationof a Panchayat Secretary has not been followed and a show cause notice has notbeen issued to impose the penalty as specified under M. P. Panchayat Service(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is contended by him that such finding iscontrary to the record. The notice to show cause has already been issued by thecompetent authority i.e. Collector on 28-9-2006 and reply thereof was submittedby the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the findings recorded by the Ministerconcerned, while passing the impugned order in second revision is unsustainablein law. It is further contended by him that the second revision against the order offirst revision passed by the Commissioner is not maintainable, therefore, theorder dated 5-11-2007 (Annexure-P/8) passed by respondent No. 3 is illegal andwithout jurisdiction. In view of the said submissions, prayer is made to quash theorder dated 5-11-2007 (Annexure-P/8) passed by respondent No. 3 and to upholdthe order dated 5-2-2007 (Annexure-P/1) of the Collector and order dated 5-6-2007 (Annexure-P/2) of the Commissioner.