OM KAR MAHOLE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 11.05.2018 in W.P. No. 4946/2018 (Omkar Mahule v. State of M.P. & others) whereby relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Santosh Raghuvanshi v. State of M.P., 2013 (11) MPWN 28 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Rajesh Barkade v. State of M.P. and others passed on 01.02.2018 in W.P. No.18135/2017, it was held that the inquiry against the respondent No.5 cannot proceed after the expiry of 90 days and even extendable period of 30 days.

(2.) The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on the complaint filed by the appellant, the respondent No.5 was removed from the post of Sarpanch vide order dated 22.11.2017 and he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.66,491/- whereas similar amount was directed to be recovered from the Secretary of the Society. Against the order dated 22.11.2017, the respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. The appeal filed by the respondent No.5 was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2018 and the inquiry proceedings were set at naught on account of violation of Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Act"), as the inquiry was not completed against the respondent No.5 within 120 days, as an order was passed on 22.11.2017 after 159 days. It is the said order of the Commissioner passed on 21.02.2018, which was challenged unsuccessfully by the petitioner in the writ petition.

(3.) The provisions of Section 40 of the Act are required to be examined as to whether the period of completion of inquiry is mandatory or directory. It would be apt to quote the Section 40, which reads as under:-