KALURAM KUSHWAH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

(2.) The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 15.10.2019, whereby service of the petitioner has been terminated without following the procedure as provided under Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 (in short " the Rules, 1999). It is alleged by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi and later on he was absorbed as Panchayat Karmi and the petitioner is performing his duties as Panchayat Secretary. The service of the petitioner is governed by the Rules, 1999. On the mobile of the petitioner message was received for meeting from the Office of Janpad Panchayat, Sironj to appear on 27. 09. 2019 wherein the respondent No. 2- Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Vidisha held the meeting of all the Panchayat Secretaries, Janpad, Sirnoj and at the same time the execution of work in Gram Panchayat was asked by him which was required to be explained by the Secretary including the petitioner. A notice was received on 04.10.2019 which was issued by the respondent No. 2 stating that the petitioner has withdrawn the amount for the performance grant and explanation submitted by the petitioner in the meeting held on 27. 09. 2019 was not found to be satisfactory. The petitioner was called upon by the notice to appear on 10.10.2019 at 3:00 PM. He has produced the copy of show cause notice dated 04.10. 2019 (Annexure P/1). The petition made all preparation and was ready to attend the date on 10.10.2019 but the meeting was postponed and was fixed on 17.10.2019 for which message has been received by the petitioner which was duly forwarded by the respondent No. 3. Despite receiving the information, the petitioner did not appear in the meeting at District Headquarter, Vidisha on 10.10.2019. The petitioner went on 17.10.2019 to the District Headquarter Office of the respondent No. 2, but he was informed that his service has already been terminated on 15.10.2019 observing in absence of the petitioner on 10.10.2019.

(3.) It is alleged that prior to dismissing the services of the petitioner, no procedure as contemplated under Rules 5 and 7 has been followed by the authorities. It is further alleged that by message (Annexure P/2) he was asked to appear on 17.10.2019 in terms of directions given by the C. E. O. , Janpad Panchayat but the fact remains that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and preponing the date from 17.10.2019 the authority has passed the order of termination of the petitioner on 15.10.2019. It is stated that a detailed procedure as prescribed under the Rule, 1999 which is required to be followed by the authorities by imposing the major penalty but the same has not been done in the present case, therefore, order of termination of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. The same deserves to be quashed.