BALLABH DAS SATAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashment of the notice dated 12.6.97 (Annexure P -7), the order of suspension dated 19.6.97 (Annexure P -9) and the confirmation thereof by order dated 2.9.97 (Annexure P -20) all actions taken under Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for such other ancillary reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details the facts which are essential for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated thus : - -

(3.) MR . Vivek Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that though the competent authority, the SDO has the authority to pass an order of suspension under section 39 of the Act but before doing so, it is required of him to be satisfied with regard to the prima facie sustainability of the allegations made against the incumbent and as the same has not been done in the present case the whole action of the competent authority is sensitively susceptible. It is further proponed by the learned counsel that the overwhelming materials and the obtaining factual matrix do clearly establish that initiation of proceeding and the order of suspension have surfaced because of the mala fide of the competent authority; and any action which is founded on mala fide, is vulnerable in law. It is also contended by Mr. Tankha, that the order of confirmation passed by the State Government is vitiated inasmuch as the same has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner though a date was fixed for personal hearing.