ANAND PATHAK,J. - (1.)Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus/ certiorari seeking following reliefs:-
"i) That, the orders annexure P/1, P/2 and P/3 may kindly be quashed/ set aside with full consequential benefits.

ii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including costs may also be granted."

(2.)Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was working on the posts of Gram Rozgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Mohammadpur, Block Chachoda, District Guna. At the relevant point of time, one complaint was lodged by one Pappulal that a Well under Kapildhara Scheme has been sanctioned in his name in Survey No. 16/3 and 19/3 and as per the contents of complaint, he does not own any land over such survey numbers and therefore, forged payments in his name are being made and Well has been excavated and constructed in survey Nos. 16/3 and 19/3. Said complaint was forwarded to the Project Officer, then CEO, Zila Panchayat himself enquired into the complaint and prepared the report dtd. 7/3/2020 in which it has been mentioned that Well has been constructed in survey No. 16/3 but it is not owned by complainant Pappulal.
(3.)After preparing the said report dtd. 7/3/2020 without any further notice or any opportunity to the petitioner, CEO, Zila Panchayat, respondent No. 2 herein, took oral orders of the Collector to terminate the services of petitioner and vide order dtd. 13/3/2020 passed by CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Chachoda, District Guna (respondent No. 3 herein)services of petitioner were terminated. Petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 (being the appellate authority) but met the same fate and grounds raised by petitioner were not considered. Thereafter, petitioner preferred second appeal before Commissioner, Gwalior Division. During pendency of second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, matter was enquired by the Additional Collector in which it has been found that there was no wrongful act done by petitioner because complainant was the owner of the land, still second appeal was rejected by the appellate authority.