PUSPENDRA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Calling in question tenability of an order dated 27.11.13 passed by the Writ Court in W. P. No. 560/10, this appeal is filed under Section 2 (i) of the M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005. Appellant herein was working as a Panchayat Karmi and while so working, the powers of Panchayat Secretary was also conferred upon him. In accordance with the provisions of Section 59 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 on account of certain financial irregularities and acts of misconduct said to have been committed by the appellant, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 24.10.07 proposing to terminate/remove him from service. It is indicated in the resolution that the notice was given to him and as the petitioner has denied the contentions and, therefore, the resolution was passed on 24.10.07.

(2.) Based on the resolution, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat passed an order on 9.10.09 removing the petitioner from service. It is seen that challenging the same, matter went to the Collector and the Commissioner and the same having been rejected, petitioner preferred the writ petition before this Court. The learned Writ Court found that petitioner was unable to show any perversity in the order passed by the Commissioner and as he has been removed from service by virtue of the financial irregularities committed, the Writ Court refused to interfere into the matter. However, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that petitioner was a Panchayat Karmi and, therefore, the service conditions are governed by the M. P. Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the Rules contemplate that for taking disciplinary action in the matter, a proper procedure has to be followed. It is emphasized by learned counsel that nothing was done, only a show -cause notice was given and when the petitioner denied the same both orally and in writing, without conducting any departmental enquiry as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, the impugned action is taken. It is argued by learned counsel that as the impugned action is taken contrary to the rules and the Collector and Commissioner have not considered this aspect of the matter, the impugned action taken is unsustainable.

(3.) From the documents and material available on record, it is clear that petitioner is a Panchayat Karmi and the Panchayat, Discipline and Appeal Rules are applicable to him. Rule 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the said Appeal and Discipline Rules deals with various aspects and procedure to be followed for imposing the punishment under the Rules. It is provided that employee of the Panchayat is to be proceeded against for misconduct, then a departmental enquiry has to be conducted and, thereafter, the punishment as envisaged under the Rules can be imposed. The Gram Panchayat issued a show -cause notice to the petitioner. He denied the allegations levelled in the show -cause notice and the Gram Panchayat without conducting any enquiry as stipulated in the Discipline and Appeal Rules removed the petitioner from service. As the removal of the petitioner from service is due to the act of misconduct and as this was not preceded by any enquiry as contemplated under the Rules, the entire action taken stands vitiated. This aspect is not considered by the Collector and Commissioner and the Writ Court also has not considered this aspect of the matter. As the impugned action is taken in contravention of the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice, it is unsustainable.