1988 Supreme(Raj) 473

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.
Mahadeo - Appellant
Versus
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 227 of 1975. (Against judgment and decree of Shri M.C. Jain, D.J., Bikaner dated 11.2.1975 in C.A. (Decree) No. 6/71)
Decided On : 17-03-1988

Headnote:

PANCHAYAT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - NATURAL JUSTICE - LIMITATION - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYAT ACT, 1953 - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYAT AND NYAYA PANCHAYAT GENERAL RULES, 1969 - SECTION 79(2)(B) - RULE 30 - The principles of natural justice are sufficiently incorporated in the Rules. The employee is informed of the charges against him. He is given an opportunity to submit his explanation to them. He can also claim personal hearing and the right to adduce evidence. Nothing else is the scope of natural justice. The suit filed by the plaintiff was, therefore, for a thing done by the Gram Panchayat and the Sarpanch under the Act in its or his official capacity once the suit falls under Section 79(2) of the Act, it could be commenced only upto six months next after the accrual of the alleged cause of action.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Mahadeo, was the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Napasar on 15.6.1960. By order dated 17.7.1962 of the defendant No. 1, services of the plaintiff were terminated. The plaintiff made a representation to the defendant No.1 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 thereto. On January 30, 1963 the plaintiff submitted an application to the defendant No. 1, wherein 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.

Finding of the Court:

The principles of natural justice are sufficiently incorporated in the Rules. The employee is informed of the charges against him. He is given an opportunity to submit his explanation to them. He can also claim personal hearing and the right to adduce evidence. Nothing else is the scope of natural justice. The suit filed by the plaintiff was, therefore, for a thing done by the Gram Panchayat and the Sarpanch under the Act in its or his official capacity once the suit falls under Section 79(2) of the Act, it could be commenced only upto six months next after the accrual of the alleged cause of action.

Issues: Whether the principles of natural justice were complied with in the termination of the plaintiff's services? Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation under Section 79(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953?

Ratio Decidendi: The principles of natural justice are sufficiently incorporated in the Rules. The employee is informed of the charges against him. He is given an opportunity to submit his explanation to them. He can also claim personal hearing and the right to adduce evidence. Nothing else is the scope of natural justice. The suit filed by the plaintiff was, therefore, for a thing done by the Gram Panchayat and the Sarpanch under the Act in its or his official capacity once the suit falls under Section 79(2) of the Act, it could be commenced only upto six months next after the accrual of the alleged cause of action.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.