NARAYAN SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition has challenged the order (Annexure P-l), dated 6-11-2000 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kolaras, District Shivpuri, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi on 5th October, 1995 on the basis of proper selection in accordance with the statutory rules and regulations. He was thereafter designated as Panchayat Secretary and at the relevant time had been working as Panchayat Secretary. It is the case of the petitioner that in accordance with the provisions of statute conditions of services of a Panchayat Karmi have been prescribed in the scheme and Clause 7 of the aforesaid scheme contemplates the provisions with regard to administrative control of the Gram Panchayat. Departmental action in accordance with the aforesaid provision can be taken against the Panchayat Karmi only by the Gram Panchayat. No other Officer can take action against the Panchayat Karmi or Secretary in view of the aforesaid provision. It is the case of the petitioner that at the instance of Chief Executive Officer without affording any opportunity of hearing, a resolution (Annexure P-2) was passed on 14-10-2000 by which based on a letter dated 12-10-2000 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, a decision was taken to remove the petitioner from services. According to the petitioner he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before terminating his services. The termination is contrary to the provisions of Clause 7 of the Scheme. The show-cause notice said to have been issued to him by the respondent vide Annexure R-2 dated 27-9-2000 was never served on the petitioner in accordance with the rules and action has been taken only on the basis of the letter dated 12-10-2000 which letter in spite of the direction of this Court is not being produced. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that the order of termination being contrary to the provisions of law, passed in violation of principles of natural justice and as action against the petitioner is taken without giving him due and proper opportunity of hearing is unsustainable. 2. Respondents have filed a reply and according to the reply it was found that the petitioner was not discharging his duties properly because of which show cause notice (Annexure R-2) was issued to him, he refused to accept the same and therefore Annexure R-2/a report of service of notice was received and on due consideration of the same, a resolution was passed to remove the petitioner from service. It is the case of the Gram Panchayat that in the present case action for removal has been taken after issuing proper show-cause notice, therefore, no interference in the matter is called for.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.