ANAND KUMAR DUBEY Vs. THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-359
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on April 17,2018

ANAND KUMAR DUBEY Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of M.P. And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VANDANA KASREKAR,J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 28/05/2008 passed by respondent No. 2 thereby rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Sirmaur District Rewa dated 03/09/2007.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat Mahari Block Sirmaur District Rewa. The Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 18/08/2005 by which petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi. In pursuance to the said resolution, respondents have passed an order dated 20/08/20105 thereby removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. Thereafter six Panchas of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat had made a compliant before the Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Service and Collector Rewa to the effect that Sarpanch of the said Panchayat had passed the said resolution by which the Panchayat Karmi was removed from the post whereas they have got signed at the instance of Sarpanch. Since the signatures have been taken by way of misrepresentation, they requested the Collector to permit the petitioner to continue as Panchayat Karmi. In pursuance to the said complaint, Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Services, District Rewa directed the CEO Janpad Panchayat Sirmaur to take statement of the Panchas and examine the proceedings and agenda of the Panchayat and thereafter report be produced before him, and till the enquiry is pending, no action be taken against the Secretary in pursuance to the Resolution dated 18/08/2005. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and Inquiry Officer submitted his report before the Joint Director and opined that prima facie proceedings are not in accordance with law. Against the order of termination, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the SDO. The SDO vide its order dated 10/01/2006 has stayed the operation of the removal order. The SDO thereafter vide order dated 08/05/2007 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Collector Rewa. The Collector Rewa has initially stayed the aforesaid order of the SDO and thereafter passed an order dated 03/07/2006 by which partly allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the SDO to decide the case afresh within a period of one month. In spite of the order of stay passed by the Commissioner, the Collector has not given the charge on the post of Secretary to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said order. The Commissioner vide order dated 20/02/2006 has stayed the said order. Thereafter, an order was issued 20/02/2006 by which the petitioner was notified as a Secretary. Against the order dated 08/05/2007 the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner had been removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi without giving any opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner has found that there was no evidence for service of notice to the petitioner on record, therefore quashed the order of the SDO and remanded the matter for deciding afresh before the SDO. In pursuance to that, SDO has issued an order dated 03/09/2007 by which he did not decide the same and stated that Sarpanch has issued notices on 19/02/2005, 02/03/2005, 07/04/2005, 19/06/2005 and 30/06/2005 and states that notices were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner then again preferred a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 28/05/2008 has dismissed the said revision. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the orders dated 20/08/2005, 28/05/2008 as well as 03/09/2007 are illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the authority has failed to consider that no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before terminating his services. He submits that in pursuance to the resolution dated 18/08/2005 the petitioner was removed from the services is itself illegal. He submits that Panchas have already filed their affidavit stating that their signature has been obtained by way of misrepresentation and enquiry was also conducted on their compliant and Inquiry Officer has given findings that the removal of the petitioner was not in the agenda and he was removed illegally but aforesaid denial has not been taken into consideration by the SDO and Commissioner in deciding the appeal or revision. A show cause notice which was referred by the Commissioner in the order is not a show cause notice for removal of the service. The same was handed over the charges on the post of Secretary to the petitioner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.