RAJENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the orders (Annexure P-5) by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sohagpur, dated 3-10-2002, Annexure P-6 by the Collector, Hoshangabad, dated 31-3-2003 and Annexure P-7 by the Commissioner, Hoshangabad, dated 3-7-2003, by which the petitioner has been removed from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baruadhana, Block Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad, because of allegations of misconduct shown in show-cause notice (Annexure P-2 ).

(2.) FACTS of the case, in short, are as under :-Petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baruadhana on 30-1-2000. Some complaint was made against the petitioner and preliminary enquiry was conducted by Chief Execution Officer, Sohagpur, who found, prima facie, misconduct established, and on the basis of this the Sub-Divisional Officer issued the petitioner show-cause notice (Annexure P-2), dated 22-5-2002. Petitioner did not accept to the allegations made in the preliminary enquiry. Thereafter, on the request of petitioner, a three member committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner. This three member committee was constituted of Sub-Divisional Officer, (R. E. S.), Sohagpur, Naib Tehsildar, Sohagpur and P. S. E. O. This committee enquired into the matter and submitted its report in respect of the allegations made in show- cause notice (Annexure P-2) and also found that there are certain other irregularities in respect of the works of petitioner and submitted the report. The Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of preliminary report and report submitted by the aforesaid three member committee found allegations against the petitioner proved and removed the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. Against this order appeal was preferred, but was dismissed by the Collector, Hoshangabad vide order (Annexure P-6) and the revision was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Hoshangabad by order (Annexure P-7 ).

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submitted that in this case principle of natural justice is violated. Before holding preliminary enquiry, petitioner was not noticed and the entire enquiry was conducted behind the back of petitioner. Thereafter, though on the prayer of petitioner three member committee was constituted, but the same committee conducted the enquiry without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was also not supplied copy of report submitted by the committee and the matter was decided without affording hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner raised this objection before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Collector and also before the Commissioner that no proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner to meet out the allegations in the case, even the preliminary enquiry report or the report submitted by the committee was not furnished to the petitioner. The three member committee which was constituted in respect of the enquiry on three allegations has reported that there are several other irregularities and all the aforesaid acts have been taken into consideration by the Sub Divisional Officer while passing the order (Annexure P-5 ). In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has been deprived to contest the case on merit and has been removed from the office of Sarpanch with the allegation. The petitioner was holding a public office and was not afforded due opportunity of hearing. This is a serious stigma against the petitioner and petitioner deserves to be allowed opportunity to submit his case before the authority. Reliance-is placed to the law laid down by this Court in Kamal Kishore Krishna Gopal Khandelwal v. Janpad Panchayat, Nalkheda and Ors. [2000 (1) M. P. H. T. 212 = 2000 (1) M. P. L. J. 309], Raja Raj Singh v. State of M. P. and Ors. [2001 (4) M. P. L. J. 364] and Kailashchandra Jain v. State of M. P. and Ors. [2003 (3) M. P. L. J. 260] and contended that the authorities be directed to furnish the copy of preliminary enquiry report and the report submitted by three member committee and thereafter petitioner be allowed opportunity to submit his case before the authority and only thereafter the matter be directed to be decided on merits.