RAM LAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order-dated 3.6.1998 ­ Annexure P/6, passed by the Minister of the Department concerned, interfering with the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Commissioner, in the matter of terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) ON the basis of certain resolution said to have been passed by Gram Sabha of the Gram Panchayat, it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi on 25.10.1995, vide order- Annexure P/1. However, due to interference of local persons and due to undue pressure exerted by respondent No.6 ­ the Sarpanch, it is stated that petitioner's service was terminated without conducting any inquiry and without granting him any opportunity on 9.1.1996, vide order Annexure P/2. Challenging the aforesaid, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector and an interim order of stay was granted by the Additional Collector vide Annexure P/3 and thereafter the appeal Ram Lakhan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others. itself was allowed vide Annexure P/4 on 27.6.1996. This order passed by the Additional Collector was challenged by respondent No.6 before the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the same vide Annexure P/5, on 9.1.1998, but on interference being made by respondent No.2, the Minister of the Department concerned, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) TAKING me through the documents and material available on record, Shri K.B. Vishwakarma, learned counsel, tried to emphasize that the Minister has simply interfered into the matter by holding that the petitioner has resigned and, therefore, he is not entitled to be reinstated. Ram Lakhan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others. This according to learned counsel was not correct, as the resignation was obtained by mis-representation, fraud and coercion and when the Collector considered this aspect and found that the resignation was accepted by the Sarpanch, which is illegal, the Minister should not have interfered into the matter.