SATYENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER aggrieved by order (Annexure P-14) by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sehora, in appeal, and by order (Annexure P-16) by Additional Collector, jabalpur, in Panchayat Revision No. 6- B/121/2002-03, dated 9-1-2003 has filed present petition. The appeal and revision were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner's appeal filed before Sub-Divisional Officer was barred by time and petitioner could not explain the delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that petitioner was working as panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Jhingrai. His services were terminated, which order was challenged by petitioner before Sub-Divisional Officer, sehora in Panchayat Appeal No. 9/panchayat/b 121/99-2000. The Sub-Divisional Officer by order (Annexure P-4), dated 22-7-2000, allowed the appeal of petitioner and matter was remitted back to Gram Panchayat to decide it afresh in accordance with directions issued by S. D. O. The petitioner, who in spite of setting aside of the previous order was not reinstated, preferred petition was disposed of- Appeal was filed on 1-3- 2001 within 30 days from the date 12-2-2001- Appeal was within time and ought to have been heard and decided on merits- Matter remitted back to SDO for hearing and deciding it on merits- Writ petition allowed. writ petition before this Court, W. P. No. 6354/2000, seeking directions front the High Court that he may be reinstated because the order terminating hit services was set aside by the S. D. O. During the pendency of writ petition, Gram panchayat passed another order on 5-8-2000 by which petitioner was again, removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi. The aforesaid order was produced in W. P. No. 6354/2000 as Annexure R-4/2. When the aforesaid matter came; up for hearing before this Court, an objection was raised by the respondent that the petitioner's services were terminated vide order (Annexure R-4/2)Though the petitioner contended that the aforesaid order had not been served upon him, but the High Court by order dated 12-2-2001 observed "whether or not a copy of the order (Annexure R-4/2) was served upon the petitioner is matter which will be decided by the appropriate authority on the basis of evidence that may be brought on record before him", and directed the: petitioner to file an appeal challenging the order (Annexure P-18) before the appellate authority. This order was passed on 12-2-2001. Thereafter, petitioner obtained certified copy on 22-2-2001 and filed appeal before the s. D. O. on 1-3-2001. In the aforesaid appeal, an objection was raised by the otherside that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the S. D. O. was barred by time. The S. D. O. vide order (Annexure P-14) found that the High court while passing order on 12-2-2001 has not passed any order in respect of limitation and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was barred by time and the petitioner has not explained the delay. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred revision before collector, but, aforesaid revision was also dismissed vide order (Annexure p-16) on the same ground.