PHULLA Vs. BABOOLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition challenge is made to an order Annexure P-1 dated 10.1,2003 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision under section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior on 12.11.2001 vide Annexure P-4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was duly appointed as Kotwar of the village and had been discharging the duties of the said post for more than 20 years. His work was satisfactory, there was no complaint against him but on the basis of resolutions dated 31.7.2000 and 21.8.2000 passed by the Gram Panchayat recommending appointment of Baboolal respondent No. 1 as Kotwar, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice wherein certain allegations were made against him. He submitted his reply to the same. However, without conducting any enquiry and without giving him opportunity of hearing, rebutting the documents and without any evidence on record, the Nayab Tahsildar vide order Annexure P-2 dated 22.3.2001 terminated the petitioner from the office of Kotwar and directed for appointment of respondent No. 1 Baboolal.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the resolutions dated 31.7.2000 and 21.8.2000 were considered and without any enquiry into the matter with regard to residence of the petitioner and the allegations contained therein, the impugned order has been passed. It is submitted that the Patwari had submitted a report with regard to work of the petitioner, he had given a report that the petitioner's work was satisfactory, he was discharging his duties properly, he was assisting the Govt, officials and there is no complaint against the petitioner but ignoring the aforesaid report, the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) THE Board of Revenue on revision being filed by Baboolal allowed the revision and upheld the orders passed by the SDO. The grievance of the petitioner is that Board of Revenue failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was discharging duties for more than 20 years and by taking the allegations made in the resolutions and show cause notice as true and correct without any further enquiry into the matter and in total disregard to the report submitted by the Patwari, impugned action is unsustainable. Referring to Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hira v. State 1965 RN 307, it is submitted by Shri Raghvendar Dixit that in the aforesaid judgment it has been held that a Kotwar is entitled to protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and terminating the services without enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing is unsustainable. It has been held in the aforesaid case that Kotwar holds a civil post. Further relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Singh v. State of M.P. and others, 1995 RN 187, it is submitted that being a resident of same village is not one of the requisite condition for holding the post of Kotwar. Various judgments passed by the Board of Revenue itself in the case of Kotwar hold that before removing a Kotwar from the post, enquiry is needed. Referring to a series of judgments said to have been cited by learned counsel alongwith his written argument in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue at the time of hearing as contained in ground 'K' of the petition. Learned counsel submits that the dictum and findings made in the aforesaid judgment of the Board of Revenue was not at all considered while passing the impugned order.