RESHAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent No.4/Sub Divisional Officer/ Prescribed Authority, Tahsil Huzur District Rewa as also the order dated 13.5.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No.2/Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2014 the petitioner was working as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kachur, Janpad Panchayat Rewa. On 13.1.2014 he was issued a show cause notice by the respondent No.4/Sub Divisional Officer regarding financial irregularities committed by him for his removal as also for recovery of amount alleged to have defalcated by him. In the aforesaid proceeding the final order was passed by the SDO on 27.8.2014 and against the said order an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Collector and the Collector vide its order dated 9.1.2015 has upheld the order dated 27.8.2014 passed by the SDO. Against the aforesaid order dated 9.1.2015 a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, which was also dismissed by the Commissioner vide its order dated 13.5.2016 affirming the orders passed by the SDO as also the Collector, Rewa.

(3.) The sole ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned orders is that under Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "Adhiniyam, 1993") the prescribed authority is obliged to pass the order of removal of Sarpanch within 90 days from the date of issuance of show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that in the present case the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.1.2014 whereas the final order was passed on 27.8.2014, thus the same being clearly beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, hence the same is without jurisdiction as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanwanti v. State of MP and others, reported in 2013(1) MPLJ 549. Thus it is submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and the consequential order for recovery be also set aside.