KAMAL KISHORE Vs. JANPAD PANCHAYAT NALKHEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Chaphekar counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner is not only inconsistent with the provisions of law but destructive to the benevolent object of "INDIRA AVAS YOJNA". He further submitted that the action which is being assailed by this petition is inconsistent with the procedure laid down for taking such action in view of the provisions of Section 40 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, for convenience). He pointed out that an inquiry has been contemplated which has to be made properly, lawfully by the officers taking action in view of the provisions of Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.

(2.) Shri Chaphekar further submitted that in the present case there has been absolutely no grievance from any corner of the society or the beneficiaries of Indira Avas Yojna. He submitted that the petitioner happened to be an executive person elected to the Panchayat from village Chapakheda and being so he was requested by the office bearers of Janpad Panchayat Chapakheda to guide them for constructing the houses in view of the said Avas Yojna. He further submitted that the said huts have been constructed well within time, satisfactorily and there is absolutely nothing with the opponents to point out that there has been loss either to Government, administration, beneficiaries under the Avas Yojna or any member of the public at large. He further submitted that the order and the action which is being assailed by this petition is thus against the spirit of the Avas Yojna, law and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Shri Prakash Verma, learned Dy. GA appearing for the respondents tried to justify the order under challenge by submitting that the role which was to be played by the petitioner was of the President, Janpad Panchayat, Nalkheda, district Shajapur and as such he was not expected to accept the role in the committee which was constituted by Gram Panchayat Chapakheda. He submitted that this deviation from the duty assigned to the President of abovementioned Janpad Panchayat has been disturbed by the role played by the petitioner as the Chairman of the said Committee and therefore, it amounted to misconduct. He further submitted that if the President of Janpad Panchayat starts functioning otherwise than indicated by the post they hold, there would be indiscipline in the functioning of the said Janpad Panchayat.