CHANDRAPAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2013 doubted the correctness of the ratio laid down by another Division Bench in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman vs. State of M. P. and others, 2008 3 MPLJ 394 and has referred the following question for consideration of the Full Bench:-

(2.) Facts leading to passing an order of reference, briefly stated, are that the appellant was appointed as the 'Panchayat Karmi' by Gram Panchayat, Badaua, District Rewa. Thereafter, he was notified as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. After notification of the appellant as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, on 14.09.2012 a criminal case for offences under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. The appellant was taken into custody and thereafter was sent to judicial custody for a period from 14.09.2012 to 02.12.2012. On account of registration of criminal case against the appellant as well as his detention, by order dated 06.10.2012 he was de-notified from the post of Secretary by the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Rewa. One Chindalal Saket was given the additional charge of Panchayat Secretary by way of an ad hoc arrangement. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant before the Collector in revision which was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2013. The order passed by the Collector was the subject matter of challenge before the Additional Commissioner, who also affirmed the same. The appellant approached this Court by filing the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the order of de-notification of the appellant from the post of Panchayat Secretary was punitive in nature and it suffered from the procedural irregularity inasmuch as the same was passed de hors the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Service Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 [hereinafter after referred to as the "Rules of 1999"]. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of de-notification on the ground that the same was rightly passed on account of registration of the criminal case as well as detention of the appellant in jail. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal.

(3.) As stated above, the Division Bench vide order dated 05.8.2013, took note of the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Hariom Singh Rajput vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2002 3 MPLJ 204 and decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman , and doubted the correctness of the law laid down by Division Bench in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman and, inter alia, observed that when a criminal case is registered against the Panchayat Secretary and allegations of embezzlement of funds are made against him, de-notification of such a 'Panchayat Secretary' is in larger interest of Gram Panchayat and it would be inappropriate to continue such an employee as Panchayat Secretary. However, he may be permitted to continue as Panchayat Karmi and before passing an order of de-notification no opportunity of hearing is required to be given to such an employee. In the aforesaid factual background the order of reference was passed.