BHAGWAN SINGH RAWAT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is assailing orders (P-8 and P-10 ). Petitioner's removal has been ordered under Section 55 of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. Order (P-8) was passed by the M. P. Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, respondent No. 2 on 23-12-2002. Petitioner preferred a petition against the order under Section 59 of the Adhiniyam. Petition has been dismissed as per order (P-10) on 28-3-2003. It appears that complaint against the petitioner was made regarding demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 2500/- from Shri Gancsh Sahu who was running a flour mill. The complaint was made to Lokayukta, of which enquiry was ordered. It appears that during the course of enquiry petitioner took the defence that on the dale in question, i. e. , 4-6-2001, there was death in relation of the petitioner. Thus, his presence at the flour mill was not possible. On the basis of submitting death certificate of Smt. Swaroopi Bai, a show-cause notice (P-6) was issued to the petitioner on 8-7-2002 mentioning the fact that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 2500/- in presenti and Rs. 2500/- to be paid after six months on 4-6-2001. In that connection petitioner had submitted the death certificate of Smt. Swaroopi Bai wife of brother of the petitioner. In the show-cause notice, it was mentioned that as per certification made by the Statistical Department, Directorate of M. P. , the death took place on 6-6-2001, not on 4-6-2001. Thus, there was conflict in the date of death as claimed by the petitioner, as such it was alleged that the petitioner has submitted false certificate regarding date of death of Smt. Swaroopi Bai in order to save himself from the allegation of demand of illegal gratification, which amounts to misconduct. Notice was issued under Section 55 of the Adhiniyam. Petitioner submitted reply (P-7) to the show-cause notice on 31-7-2002. He denied the allegation of demand of illegal gratification and also staled that he is illiterate person. His statement about the date of death was made on 5-2-2002, is correct. May be that on the basis of loss of memory in the certificate date was wrongly mentioned as 4-6-2001. However, Swaroopi Bai had died. Petitioner is not responsible for the entry dated 6-6-2001. Statement of the pclilioner was also recorded. Order (P-8) was passed on 23-12-2002 removing the petitioner from the post of Agriculture Member of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhopal. Perusal of the order (P-8) indicates that no finding has been recorded on the main charge of demand of illegal gratification. However, question of submitting the death certificate has been gone into and it has been found that in order to save himself and show that he was not present on 4-6-2001 at the flour mill of Shri Ganesh Sahu when demand of illegal gratification was made, false certificate has been submitted.

(2.) THE order has been affirmed by the State Government as per order (P-10 ). Hence, this writ petition has been filed on the ground that due and proper opportunity to defend had not been granled. The order is violativc of principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 55 of the Adhiniyam. Ganesh Sahu has made the false complaint. He could not prove his case. Hence, any how lo get rid of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. Petitioner has been victimized. Personal hearing was not afforded by respondent No. 2 before passing the impugned order.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2. It is contended in the return that the order has been passed after enquiry. Some proceedings were initialed by the Lokayukta. Letter (R-1) dated 17-8-2001 was received. Enquiry report (R-2) was submitted on 30-4-2002. In order to defend himself, petitioner submitted incorrect certificate, hence, initiated action under Section 55 (1) of the Adhiniyam. Show-cause notice was sent. Reply of which was submitted. Petitioner did not appear in person in spite of order (R-6 ). Statement (R-8) of the petitioner was recorded on 21-10-2002. Statement of Ganesh Sahu was also recorded. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order. Same has been passed in accordance with law.