JAMNA PRASAD MODI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition and following four petitions raise identical questions and are, therefore, being decided by a common order :- (1) M. P. No. 3709/86 Chitrakut vs. State of M. P. and another, (2) M. P. No. 757/87, premsingh vs. Collector Chhindwara and two others, (3) M. P. No. 772/87 Atmaram vs. Collector Mandla and two others, (4) M. P. No. 762/87, Jitendrakumar Shukla vs. State of M. P. and three others.

(2.) THE petitioner in each of these writ petitions, is a Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat. Proceedings under Section 35 of the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), have been initiated against the petitioners of these writ petitions and notice along with charge sheets have been served on them requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be removed from the office of Sarpanch. In each of these cases, an order under Section 34 (1) (c) of the Act has also-been passed suspending them from the office of Sarpanch pending enquiry into the charges under section 35 of the Act.

(3.) IN some of these cases the petitioners had filed revisions before the commissioner under Rule 5 of the M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). These revisions, however, have been dismissed on the basis of a Government order stating that since sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the act contemplates that the order of suspension under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 34 shall be reported to the State Government within a period of 10 days and shall be subject to such orders as the State Government may deem fit to pass, the commissioner, by entertaining an appeal, could not nullify the provision contained in the said sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Act.