PHULVASIYA PAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is two folds; one that the order impugned has been issued without affording full opportunity of defence to the petitioner in appropriate manner and the other one is that the order dated 24.04.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Prescribed Authority, Hanumana District, Rewa, is beyond the jurisdiction as the said order is not passed within the time prescribed under the provisions of Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").

(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for alleged misconduct on 31.05.2012 and a date was fixed for hearing on 14.06.2012. Though reply was filed by the petitioner, but no enquiry was conducted in that respect in appropriate manner by affording an opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses to the petitioner, by the Prescribed Authority and the order was passed on 24.04.2013 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and directing that the action be taken against the concerned Secretary of the Gram Panchayat under Section 69(1) and Section 92 of the Act against the petitioner and the said Secretary. Since the order was not passed by the competent Prescribed Authority within the time prescribed under Section 40 of the Act, the order was beyond the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority.

(3.) PER contra, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the State that enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and a report was submitted by the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat, Hanumana, indicating that financial irregularities were committed by the petitioner. Only on the basis of such report action was rightly taken by the Prescribed Authority against the petitioner and opportunity of hearing was given. In view of the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority, there was no case made out to interfere in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, rightly the appeal and revision of the petitioner were dismissed by the Appellate and Revisional Authority. It is contended that in view of the aforesaid, interference in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in exercise of power of judicial review of the said order by this Court, is not required.