SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dtd. 20/1/2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16440 of 2020, whereby, petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Karondi Tola, Janpad Panchayat Manpur, District Shahdol for a period of five years from 2015 till March, 2020. Since the election could not take place before expiry of the duration of Panchayat, therefore, on 8/3/2020, the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Sec. 87(3)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "Act of 1993) directed that all powers and duties of the Panchayat shall, until the Panchayat is reconstituted, be exercised and performed by the Committee of persons. The State Government also decided that the Head of the Committee would be the outgoing Sarpanch who was holding the post of Sarpanch on the date of expiration of the term of five years. In pursuance to the directions dtd. 8/3/2020, the appellant was appointed as "Pradhan" of the Administrative Committee. On account of certain complaints against the appellant-petitioner for causing financial loss and working against the interest of the Panchayat, vide order dtd. 25/8/220, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat constituted a Committee and directed to submit its report. The inquiry report was submitted on 10/9/2020 in which certain anomalies were reported. On 11/9/2020, a show cause notice was issued against the appellant-petitioner alleging various financial irregularities against him. The appellant-petitioner filed W.P.No.13308-2020 before this court which was decided on 21/9/2020 directing the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad panchayat Manpur to take appropriate steps in the matter and provide proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant-petitioner before taking any action. On 14/10/2020 (Annexure P-14), an action for removal of the appellant-petitioner was taken which was challenged by the appellant by filing W.P.No.16440-2020. The learned Single Judge held that there was no fault in the impugned order dtd. 14/10/2020 (Annexure P-14) and dismissed the said petition against which the appellant has filed the instant writ appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner submits that the inquiry was conducted behind the back of the appellant-petitioner; the impugned action of removal taken against the appellant-petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. He also submits that the provisions of Sec. 40 of the Act of 1993 have not been followed and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition.