SURESH KUMAR RAWAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):-

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was working as a Gram Rozgar Sahayak and a complaint was made by the villagers to the authority in respect of making payment to job card holders from the account of the wife of petitioner. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat had issued direction to panchayat co-ordinator to conduct a fact finding enquiry in this regard. On the basis of aforesaid direction, Panchayat co-ordinator recorded the statements of such labourers and found that the bank account of wife of petitioner was used due to non-availability of bank account of some of the persons who had duly worked under NREGS scheme and their job cards were duly uploaded by the Janpad Panchayat online. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that undisputedly, the workers completed the work and as they had no savings accounts therefore the amount was deposited in the account of wife of petitioner and thereafter the said amount was being paid to the workers after withdrawing the amount from the account of the wife of petitioner. Thereafter, the services of petitioner were terminated by order dtd. 26/11/2016 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner preferred the appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior and the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal by order dtd. 19/7/2017. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that respondent/Collector merely on the basis of report sent by the Chief Executive Officer and on the basis of admission of petitioner took the decision of removal from the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak which prima facie is a shocking punishment as petitioner clearly explained the situation in which such payment was received in the account of wife and thereafter handed over to the workers who had completed the work and such situation should be considered positively as the workers/labourers did not possess the bank account. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that it is not the case of respondents that such labourers did not work under the NREGS scheme nor is it the case of respondents that after receiving such amount in the account of wife of petitioner the same has not been paid to such workers/labourers. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that merely making payment to such labourers who otherwise were entitled to the same through a shortcut is not an illegality or financial irregularity on the part of petitioner. The labourers/workers have not made any complaint stating that the amount has not been received by them and workers have already given affidavit in favour of petitioner.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/State submits that petitioner himself admitted the fact that all job card holders were not having their individual bank account, therefore, after receiving their consent amount of wages was deposited in the bank account No.32436709548 belonging to the wife of petitioner. Along with reply of show-cause notice, affidavits of Ummed Singh and Smt. Shakuntala Devi were also filed in this regard and it is submitted that since petitioner has admitted his guilt that amount of wages payable to the labourers/workers was deposited in the account of his wife, his services have been terminated after holding an enquiry in this regard. Learned counsel for respondent/State further submits that the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction over and above the findings recorded by two authorities below. There are concurrent findings of fact which should not be interfered with under Article 226 of Constitution of India. There is a very less scope of judicial review which ought not to be exercised by this Court as an appellate authority over and above the findings recorded by the Collector as well as Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, Division Gwalior. Learned counsel for respondent/State further submits that after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner his services have been terminated, as petitioner himself has admitted the fact about depositing the amount of wages in the bank account of his wife. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of policy since petitioner was found to be involved in the serious financial irregularities and misconduct, services of petitioner have been terminated. It is submitted that petitioner cannot be allowed to commit irregularities as no regulation as well as guideline empowers the petitioner to deposit the amount, disbursed by State Government for payment of labourers, in the account of his wife.