SHAHZAD AHMED Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the order (Annexure P-4), by which Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur in Revision Case No. 500/a-89/2002-03, dated 31-12-2003 allowed the revision of respondent No. 4 Ganesh Prasad Sareyam and the case has been remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for holding enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 4 Ganesh Prasad Sareyam, and to pass a fresh order.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 Ganesh Prasad Sareyam is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dongaria. A complaint was made to the Collector, Chhindwara, in respect of some allegations against him. The Collector, Chhindwara vide letter dated 25-10-2002 initiated proceedings against him and the matter was sent to Sub- Divisional Officer for enquiry. The Sub-Divisional Officer after enquiry removed him from the office of Sarpanch and also disqualified him for six years from contesting election on the aforesaid post. This order (Annexure P-1), dated 22-7-2003 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, was challenged by Ganesh Prasad Sareyam before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur in revision.

(3.) BEFORE the revisional authority a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner that the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer is appealable under the M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'rules' for short) and the revision filed before the Additional Commissioner was not maintainable. The Additional Commissioner considered this objection and found that the proceedings were initiated against Ganesh Prasad Sareyam at the instance of Collector. In the circumstances the revision was entertained and decided. The Additional Commissioner found that proper opportunity was not afforded to respondent Ganesh Prasad Sareyam and the enquiry report of Naib Tehsildar is also not specific and is lacking on material particulars. After recording aforesaid findings, the Additional Commissioner remanded the case to Sub-Divisional Officer with a direction to him to form an Enquiry Committee and the matter be enquired by the Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee will also afford opportunity of hearing to both the parties and thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer shall pass the order. The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioner solitarily on the ground that revision before the Additional Commissioner was not maintainable and the Additional Commissioner erred in exercising his jurisdiction in revision, while appeal was maintainable before the Collector. Contending aforesaid, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the order (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Commissioner may be quashed or this petition may be allowed and respondent No. 4 may be directed to file appeal against the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer.