BHANWARLAL MAKWANA Vs. PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India petitioner Bhanwarlal Makwana s/o Lunaji has challenged the order dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by Commissioner, Indore in Appeal No. 509/2013 -14.

(2.) THE singular question raised before this Court by the Counsel for the petitioner was that the charge sheet has not been produced within 90 days and suspension liable to be revoked and set aside. Counsel submitted the facts of the case as follows that the petitioner was working as a Panchayat Karmi/Secretary of Gram Panchayat Chhayan and on 19.04.2006 the respondent No. 3/Collector notified the petitioner as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Chhayan as per Section 69(1) of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 when suddenly respondent No. 4/Sub -Divisional Officer directed lodging of the FIR against the petitioner u/S. 92(2) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993. He also appeared in the Court of SDO and gave an undertaking that he had completed the allotted works at 12 places. However Counsel submitted that the S.D.O. accepted the bail bond of the petitioner and he also recorded the statement that the petitioner has completed 75% of his construction work and on the basis of undertaking he may be released on bail. However nothing was done in the matter and the suspension order dated 30.08.2014 (Annexure P/2) issued. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged this suspension order as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law in an appeal u/S. 91 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Counsel submitted that the suspension order has been attacked on the ground that more than 100 days had elapsed and contrary of Rule 5 -A of Civil Services Book the charge sheet was not produced within 90 days and on this ground alone suspension was liable to be revoked, but all the pleas of Counsel for the petitioner has followed on deaf ears and the respondent/authority has rejected the application for grant of stay vide the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 30.09.2014 hence this petition.

(3.) PER contra, Counsel for the respondents/State has vehemently urged the fact that about two cases cited are under the Civil Service Rules whereas perfectly alternative remedy was available under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and the appeal filed is already pending under Annexure P/8 and the petition could not be entertained when there is an alternative efficacious remedy available. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition.