1999 Supreme(MP) 898

2000 (2) JLJ 242
Dipak Misra, J.
Raja Raj Singh v. State of M.P and others.
W.P. No. 2462 of 1999; Decided on 1.12.1999.

Headnote:(1) Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (M.P.) -- R. 5 -instead of filing revision writ petition filed -- notices issued -- pleadings complete -- only law points involved -- alternative remedy not a bar in such case. [Para 6

       (2) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 40 -- removal of office bearer under -- enquiry not conducted by prescribed authority -- no complainant examined -- copies of documents used against office bearer not supplied to him -- enquiry and orders passed thereon are liable to be quashed.

       It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the inquiry was conducted by the three members of the Committee behind the back of the petitioner. Such preliminary inquiry may have the sanction of law and the petitioner cannot claim that the said inquiry should be held in his presence but the real inquiry has to be held by the prescribed authority and in the said inquiry where the petitioner has to be given due/adequate/sufficient opportunity. It is submitted by Mr. Bhatti, on a perusal of the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority, it is perceptible that the persons who made complaints against the petitioner were not examined by the prescribed authority and the petitioner could not have cross-examined them but, unfortunately the statements of the said witnesses have been considered by the Collector and been utliised against the petitioner. On a perusal of the record, it is noticed that this fact is borne out, on record and the learned counsel for the State is not in a position to dispute the same. Quite apart from that, it is noticeable that the petitioner‘s application for supply of documents had not been properly construed by the prescribed authority, as the petitioner was supplied only the inquiry report but not the materials/other documents. An interesting feature which cannot be lost sight of is that the appellate authority has called for these documents by order dated 8.4.99 but it does not appear that the petitioner was supplied the said documents. It has been ruled in the case of Bansmani (supra). the documents which are sought to be utilised against the holder of the office, should be supplied to him so that he can have fair chance to rebut the same. As the factual matrix indicates the materials collected against the petitioner were not supplied to him and further the petitioner was not granted sufficient opportunity to produce his evidence to rebut the allegations made against him, I am of the considered view, the orders passed by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are vulnerable being violative of principles of natural justice as well as being against the basic concept of adjudicating process and accordingly, the said orders contained in Annexures P-12 and P-18 are hereby quashed. 1980 JLJ 60 relied on. [Para 7

       ¼1½ iapk;r ¼vihy rFkk iqujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1995 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 5 && iqujh{k.k Qkby djus ds LFkku ij fjV ;kfpdk Qkby dh xbZ && lwpuk,a tkjh && vfHkopu laiw.kZ && fof/k ds iz‘u gh varoZfyr && ,sls ekeysa esa vkuqdfYid mipkj dk otZu ugha gSA

       ¼2½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 40 && in/kkjh dk gVk;k tkuk && fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk tk¡p ugha dh xbZ && fdlh Hkh ifjoknh dh ijh{kk ugha dh xbZ && in/kkjh ds fo#) mi;ksx fd, x, nLrkostksa dh izfr;k¡ mls iznÙk ugha dh xbZ && tk¡p rFkk ml ij ikfjr vkns‘k vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ds nkf;Ro/khu gaSA

       jkT; ds fo}ku dkmUlsy }kjk fookfnr ugha gS fd lfefr ds rhu lnL;ksa }kjk tk¡p ;kph dks ihB&ihNs dh xbZ FkhA ,slh izkjafHkd tk¡p dh fof/k dk eatwjh gks ldrh gS rFkk ;kph nkok ugha dj ldrk fd mDr tk¡p mldh mifLFkfr esa dh tkuk pkfg, iajrq vlyh lE;~d@leqfpr@i;kZIr volj fn;k tkuk gksrk gSA Jh HkÍh }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkf{kIr vkns‘k ds ifj‘kbyu ls izR;{k gS fd ;kph ds fo#) f‘kdk;r djus okys O;fDr;ksa dh fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk ijh{kk ugha dh xbZ rFkk ;kph mudh izfrijh{kk dj gh ugha ik;k gksxk] nqHkkZX;o‘k] mDr lk{khx.k ds dFkuksa ij dyDVj }kjk fopkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;kph ds fo#) mudk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gSA vfHkys[k dk ifj‘kbyu djus ij vis{kk dh xbZ gS fd ;g rF; vfHkys[k ls fl) gksrk gS rFkk jkT; ds fo}ku dkmUlsy ml ij fookn djus dh fLFkfr esa ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr] ;g vos{k.kh; gS fd nLrkostksa ds inzk; ds fy, ;kph ds vkosnu dk fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk mfpr vFkZ ugha yxk;k x;k D;ksafd ;kph dks tk¡p dh fjiksVZ gh iznk; dh xbZ] lkexzh@vU; nLrkost ughaA ,d jkspd fof‘k"Vrk ftldks –f"V ls vks>y ugha fd;k tk ldrk] ;g gS fd viby izkf/kdkjh us vkns‘k fnukad 8-4-1999 }kjk bu nLrkostksa dks e¡xk;k gS ijarq izrhr ugha gksrk fd ;kph dks mDr nLrkost iznk; fd, x, FksA claeuh ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa fu.khZr fd;k x;k gS fd in/kkjh ds fo#) ftu nLrkostksa dk mi;ksx bZfIlr gks og mls inzk; fd, tkuk pkfg, ftlls mls mudk [akM djus dk _tq volj izkIr gksA D;ksafd rF;kRed vk/kkj&f‘kyk ls minf‘Zkr gS fd ;kph ds fo#) lax`ghr lkexzh mls inzk; ugha dh xbZ Fkh rFkk blds vfrfjDr mlds fo#) fd, x, vfHkdFkuksa dk [kaM djus ds fy, viuk lk{; izlrq djus dk ;kph dks i;kZIr volj ugha fn;k x;k Fkk] esjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr rFkk viby izkf/kdkjh }kjk vfHkiq"V vkns‘k] uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vfrØe.k djus ds lkFk&gh U;k;fu.kZ;u dh izfØ;k dh ewy ladYiuk ds fo#) gksus ds dkj.k lgt Hks| gS( rnuqlkj] mikca/k ih&12 rFkk ih&18 esa varfoZ"V mDr vkns‘k ,rn~}kjk vfHk[kafMr fd, tkrs gSA 1980 ts ,y ts 60 voayfcrA ¿ iSjk 17À