RAJA RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 22-3-99, 'annexure P-12' whereby the Collector, Sagar, respondent No. 3 herein had passed an order of removal of the petitioner from the office of President, Janpad Panchayat, Jaisenagar in exercise of power conferred on him under Section 40 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order dated 12-5-99, 'annexure P-18' by which the appellate authority, the Additional Commissioner, Sagar has affirmed the order of removal.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details, the facts as have been unfurled are that the petitioner was elected as President of Janpad Panchayat, Jaisenagar in the District of Sagar. During his tenure he had made complaints to the higher authorities with regard to mal-functioning of the Chief Executive Officer, Jaisenagar. Due to such complaint the said Chief Executive Officer had harboured grudge against him and to satisfy his feeling of vengeance. He set up one Skandh Mishra, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Karraiya, who made number of complaints to the Collector against the petitioner. The Chief Executive Officer also made certain complaints against the petitioner before the Collector. The respondent No. 3 after receiving such complaints against the petitioner constituted an enquiry committee consisting of Dy. Collector Sagar, who functioned as the President of the said committee which included Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Sub-Division Sagar and District Auditor in the Office of Dy. Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Sagar as other members. The said committee recorded the statements of the complainant, Skandh Mishra and 7 others, namely, Raghuraj Singh, Rakesh Patel, Jaalim Singh, Sibbulal, Morari Pd. Khare, Prahlad Pd. Raikwar and Raj Kumar Chadhar. It is alleged that the said persons are working under various wings of the Janpad Panchayat and in the Department of Rural Engineering Services and they had an axe to grind against the petitioner. The committee submitted its report indicating that the petitioner was prima facie guilty of the charges levelled against him. On the basis of the aforesaid report the Collector issued a show cause notice under Section 40 of the Act on 18-2-99 to the petitioner which was received by him on 22-2-99. He prayed for some time to furnish his explanation. The Collector adjourned the matter to 1-3-99. On that day the petitioner filed his reply and prayed for grant of various documents, list of witnesses and statements recorded against him. This prayer was incorporated in the reply to show cause filed by the petitioner. It is alleged in the petition that the Collector had not supplied the copy of the enquiry committee report and the statements of the witnesses while issuing the notice to show cause. It is averred in the petition that on 1-3-99 when the date was fixed for submission of reply of the petitioner, the two members of the Enquiry Committee, namely, Shri Shivram Patna and Shri Soni were called and they were examined. As the petitioner complained with regard to inadequacy of time for cross-examining the witnesses, the competent authority adjourned the matter to 5-3-99. On that clay the third member of the Committee was examined. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final argument on 8-3-99 and the matter was heard by the competent authority and the impugned order was passed.

(3.) ASSAILING the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. A specific ground was taken in the memorandum of appeal that the competent authority has proceeded in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the documents which were utilised against the petitioner were not furnished to him and the persons who had made allegations against the petitioner were not examined the members of the enquiry committee were examined. It is also pleaded in the petition that the appellate authority without considering the grievance of the petitioner in proper perspective affirmed the order of the competent authority. According to the petitioner the orders passed by the authorities below are unsustainable in as much as there has been violation of principles of natural justice as the inquiry was conducted by the inquiry committee behind the back of the petitioner and the materials obtained by the committee against the petitioner were not supplied to him and the witnesses were not examined but their statements have been taken note of by the competent authority and further the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity to examine his witnesses. It is also averred that the committee which has been appointed by the Collector did not have jurisdiction/authority to conduct preliminary inquiry as that violates the commands of the circular dated 10-5-95 issued by the State Government.