MAHADEO Vs. SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the Civil Judge, Bikaner by her decree dated March 31, 1971 declared that the order dated July 17, 1962 of the defendant No. 1 (Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Napasar) and any other terminating the services of the plaintiff as Secretary was void and ineffective and that the plaintiff continued to remain in service and further passed a decree in plaintiff's favour for Rs. 5320/ - on account of arrears of pay. but on the filing of Civil First Appeal No. 6 of 1971 by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the District Judge. Bikaner by his decree dated February 11, 1975 reversed the decree of the Civil Judge in its entirety and dismissed the suit of Mahadeo plaintiff with costs throughout, leading the plaintiff to file the present second appeal in this Court.

(2.) SHORN of all unnecessary details, it is an undisputed fact that Mahadeo plaintiff was Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Napasrar on 15 6 -1960 and that by order dt. 17 -7 -62 of the defendant No. 1, services of the plaintiff were terminated. The plaintiff made a representation to the defendant No.] and also filed an appeal against the order of termination of his service before the Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner. The Panchayat Samiti by its order dated 7 -12 1962 set aside the order of termination of plaintiff's service and after suspending the plaintiff, directed the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to serve a proper charge -sheet upon the plaintiff and to pass appropriate order after affording to the plaintiff a full opportunity of being heard. The plaintiff filed a revision petition against the order of the Panchayat Samiti dated December 7, 1962. When the plaintiff's revision petition was pending before the Collector, Bikaner the defendant No. 1, on behalf of Gram Panchayat, Napasar sent a charge -sheet to the plaintiff and required the plaintiff to submit his reply there to. On January 30, 1963 the plaintiff submitted an application to the defendant No. 1, where in he mentioned that his revision petition against the order of Panchayat Samiti dated December 7, 1962 was pending consideration before the Collector and, therefore, no further proceedings be taken in pursuance of the order of the Panchayat Samiti. But the defendant No. 1 paid no heed to the plaintiff's representations dated July 20, 1962 and January 30, 1963 and behind the back of the plaintiff without giving any notice to him, he got his order dated July 17, 1962 of termination of plaintiff's service approved from the Gram Panchayat, Napasar of which the plaintiff acquired knowledge on July 1, 1964 in the office of the Collector, Bikaner. The Collector, Bikaner by his order dated March 20, 1963 accepted the revision petition of the plaintiff and remanded the appeal to the Panchayat Samiti for re -hearing. The Panchayat Samiti, however, it was alleged wrongly dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff and held that order of termination of service of the plaintiff dated July 17, 1962 to be void. The plaintiff had, therefore, to file another revision application before the Collector. During the course of arguments of the second revision application before the Collector, it was represented on behalf of the defendants that the order dated July 17,' 1962 of the defendant No. 1 had been approved by the Gram Panchayat, Napasar on February 28, 1963. On this representation alone, the Collector, Bikaner dismissed the revision. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed on January 15, 1965 as not maintainable.

(3.) THE defendants No. 1 and 2 admitted that plaintiff's services as Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Napasar were terminated. Filing of appeal and revision by the plaintiff was admitted. It was also stated that the plaintiff was served with a charge -sheet and since he did not submit reply to the charge -sheet the order of termination passed on July 17, 1962 was approved and the plaintiff had knowledge of it from the very date on which approval was made. It is admitted that the Panchayat Samiti, after remand of the appeal dismissed the same and revision and appeal filed by the plaintiff were also dismissed by the Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority. Acquittal of the plaintiff by the Judicial Magistrate for the offence under Section 409, I.P.C. was admitted but it was denied that the plaintiff there by became entitled to reinstatement It was also denied that termination of the service of the plaintiff was ultra vires or tainted with malafides. It was asserted that the services of the plaintiff were lawfully and validly terminated after serving upon him a charge -sheet to which he did not care to reply. The notice served by the plaintiff/was stated to be invalid and the suit was also said to be barred by limitation.