SUKHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Panchayat Karmi and was notified as Panchayat Secretary. He was appointed as Panchayat Karmi on 27-10-1997 in Gram Panchayat Silpura, Block Rewa, District Rewa. Thereafter on 26-06-1998, powers of Secretary were conferred upon him by the competent authority exercising powers under Section 69(1) of Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam. Document Annexure P-1 is appointment order of the petitioner. However, vide resolution, an order was passed on 17-10-2005 and the services of the petitioner were dispensed with . The petitioner challenged the order by filing appeal before the SDO, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa , who initially granted interim relief but ultimately dismissed the appeal.

(2.) THE petitioner, in the meanwhile approached this court in W.P.No.9985/2006 and disposed of the matter directing the SDO to reconsider the matter and take a decision. The SDO finally dismissed the claim of the petitioner and on revision and second revision having rejected by the Collector and Commissioner, respectively, the petitioner is before this court.

(3.) SHRI V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention to the first show cause notice allegedly issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-9 and points out that in this notice, there is no dispatch number and the date of issuing of this notice at page no.1 is shown 23-09-2005, however, the first page does not bear the signature of any authority, but in the second page, the Sarpanch has signed the notice and date of issuing of this notice is shown to be 22-09-2005. However, the letter is said to have been served on 22-09-2005 and an endorsement is made showing that the petitioner has refused to accept this notice and therefore, the notice was returned back. Shri V.K.Shukla, invites my attention to the endorsement made in the second page in the left bottom and argued that this endorsement was subsequently manipulated only to show refusal of notice by the petitioner and Indicating that the notices were not properly served and therefore, without taking note of these notices, the authorities have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, which is unsustainable, Shri Shukla prays for interference into the matter.