FAIZ MOHD FAIZ Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pandarwani, Janpad Panchayat Lalbarra, District Balghat. The Sub-Divisional Officer- cum-Prescribed Authority, Waraseoni issued a show-cause notice dated 27-3- 2003 against the petitioner in respect of various amount collected by the petitioner with a notice why the matter be not handed over to police. Petitioner submitted reply. Thereafter, the SDO passed the order (Annexure P-4), dated 3-2-2004 by which petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch. The order (Annexure P-4) was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Balaghat, in Appeal No. 32-A/89 year 2003-2004, and by order, dated 10-6-2004 (Annexure P-2), the Additional Collector remanded the case to the SDO on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner and petitioner was not issued a proper notice and the notice which was for specific purpose was not given effect to. The Additional Collector directed the SDO to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and thereafter to pass the order in accordance with law. This order of Additional Collector was challenged by respondent No. 3 before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, in Revision, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner by order, dated 11-9-2004 (Annexure P-1) and the remand order has been quashed. The said order (Annexure P-1) is challenged by the petitioner in this petition invoking power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected Sarpanch and no notice under Section 40 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner was not supplied copy of inquiry report and the documents relied in the report and without affording due opportunity the order was passed. The Additional Collector rightly remanded the case to follow the procedure envisaged under Section 40 of the Act.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who have caused appearance, supported the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that a proper notice was issued to the petitioner by the SDO. There were serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch on finding financial irregularities committed by him and considering the aforesaid, the SDO has rightly passed the order removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. When the petitioner was well aware about the allegations and proper notice was issued by the SDO, there was no question of remand by the Additional Collector. All the documents were in the knowledge of the petitioner. At this stage, petitioner can not be said to be prejudiced even if a specific notice of removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch was not issued.