Back
1999 (2) JLJ 280
S.P. Khare, J.
Kailash Kumar Dangi v. State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 1275 of 1998; Decided on 3.8.1999.
(2) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 40(1) and 40(2) -- removal of elected Sarpanch -- is a serious matter when he is further disqualified for six years to be elected under the Act -- mere show cause notice and consideration of reply is not sufficient. [Para 6
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 311 -- M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyan, 1993 -- S. 40 -- removal of Panchayat office bearer under S. 40 of the Act -- is not less injurious and stigmatic than removal of civil servant under Art. 311 of Constitution. [Para 7]
(4) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 40(1) -- word ‘an inquiry‘ as employed under -- is of the nature envisaged under Art. 311 of the Constitution -- delinquent employee is informed of the charges and is given opportunity of being heard thereon. [Para 7]
(5) Legal Maxim -- audi alteram partem -- none should be condemned unheard -- is incorporated in an "inquiry" -- what principles of natural justice should be applied -- depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. [Para 7
(6) Natural Justice -- principles of -- "a party should have opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence -- evidence of opponent should be taken in his presence -- should have opportunity to cross-examine witnesses of other party -- no material against him should be reiled upon without his explanation. AIR 1957 SC 882 and AIR 1958 SC 300 followed. [Para 7]
(7) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 40(1) -- words "after such inquiry as it may deem fit to make" -- means an inquiry held in presence of office bearer -- he should be allowed to inspect documents to be relied upon against him -- his own evidence should also be taken. [Para 8]
(8) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 40(1) -- an "inquiry" under -- should be in accordance with principles of natural justice -- prescribed authority has no subjective choice to conduct any sort of enquiry. [Para 8]
(9) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 40(1) -- words "as it may deem fit" -- have to be construed objectively -- mean an "inquiry" depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. [Para 8]
(10) Natural Justice -- principles, of -- are used to supplement statutory procedure -- such principles provide for a hearing or inquiry. (1987) AC 625 relied on. [Paras 9 & 10]
(11) Natural Justice -- principles of -- in case right to be heard is real right -- accused must know the case against him -- he must also know what evidence is against him -- he must also be given opportunity to contradict it. (1962) AC 322 relied on. [Para 11]
(12) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- S. 40(1) -- inquiry not held in presence of office bearer -- no copy of preliminary report supplied -- no documents shown -- no opportunity to lead evidence provided despite demand -- inquiry and removal from office is bad in law. AIR 1996 SC 1669 followed. [Paras 12 & 13]
(13) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 40(1) -- charges of misconduct -- likely to be proved or disproved on evidence -- opportunity to adduce evidence should be given. [Para 14]
(14) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 40(1) -- removal and disqualification of office bearer not based on fair inquiry -- rule of natural justice violated -- order has to be struck down. 1998(2) ILJ 303 relied on. AIR 1991 SC 101 followed. [Para 14]
(15) Constitution of India -- Art. 14 -- right to fair treatment -- is an essential ingredient of natural justice -- it is integral part of guarantee of equality assured under. AIR 1991 SC 101 followed. [Para 14]
¼1½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 40¼1½ rFkk ijarqd && /kkjk 40¼1½ ds eq[; Hkkx esa ‘‘kCn ^^,slh tk¡p djus ds i‘pkr~ tSlh og mfpr le>s** && ijarqd esa ‘‘kCn ^^tc rd fd mls ;g dkj.k crkus dk volj u ns fn;k x;k gks fd mls mlds in ls D;ksa u gVk fn;k tk,** && fu.kkZ;d egRo ds gSaA ¿ iSjk 6 ¼2½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 40¼1½ rFkk 40¼2½ && fuokZfpr ljiap dk gVk;k tkuk && xaHkhj ekeyk gS tc blds vfrfjDr bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu og Ng o"kZ ds fy, fuokZpu ds fy, fujgZ gks tkrk gS && ek= dkj.k crkvks lwpuk rFkk mÙkj ij fopkj djuk i;kZIr ughaA ¿ iSjk 6 ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 311 && e-iz- iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 && /kkjk 40 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 40 ds v/khu iapk;r ds in/kkjh dk gVk;k tkuk && lafo/kku ds vuq- 311 ds v/khu flfoy lsod ds gVk, tkus ls de {kfrdkfjr rFkk dyaduh; ughaA ¿ iSjk 7 ¼4½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 40¼1½ && ds v/khu ;Fkkiz;qDr ‘‘kCn ^^tk¡p** && lafo/kku ds vuq- 311 ds v/khu ;FkkifjdfYir Lo:i dk gS && vipkjh deZpkjh dks vkjksiksa dh bfÙkyk dh tkrh gS rFkk mu ij lquokbZ dk volj fn;k tkrk gSA ¿ iSjk 7 ¼5½ fof/kd lw= && nwljs i{k dks Hkh lquks && fcuk lquokbZ ds fdlh dks Hkh fl)nks"k ugha Bgjkuk pkfg, && ^^tk¡p** esa lfEefyr gS && uSlfxZd U;k; ds dkSu ls fl)kar ykxw fd, tkuk pkfg, && izR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djrk gSA ¿ iSjk 7 ¼6½ uSlfxZd U;k; && fl)kar && i{kdkj dks lc lqlaxr lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj feyuk pkfg, && fojks/kh i{kdkj dk lk{; mldh mifLFkfr esa fy;k tkuk pkfg, && vU; i{k ds lkf{k;ksa dh izfrijh{kk djus dk volj feyuk pkfg, && mlds fo:) lkexzh dk mlds Li"Vhdj.k ds fcuk voyac ugha ysuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 882 rFkk , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 300 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7 ¼7½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 40¼1½ && ‘‘kCn ^^,slh tk¡p djus ds i‘pkr~ tSlh og mfpr le>s** && vFkZ gS in/kkjh dh mifLFkfr esa vk;ksftr tk¡p && mlds fo:) ftu nLrkostksa dk voyac fy;k tk,xk mls mudk fujh{k.k djus nsuk pkfg, && mldk Lo;a dk lk{; Hkh fy;k tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 8 ¼8½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 40¼1½ && ^^tk¡p** && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds vuqlkj gksuk pkfg, && fofgr izkf/kdkjh dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dh tk¡p djus dk O;fDrijd fodYi ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 8 ¼9½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && ¼10½ uSlfxZd U;k; && fl)kar && dkuwuh izfØ;k dh vuqiwfrZ ds fy, iz;qDr fd, tkrs gSa && ,sls fl)kar lquokbZ vFkok tk¡p micaf/kr djrs gSaA ¼1987½ , lh 625 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 9 ,oa 10 ¼11½ uSlfxZd U;k; && fl)kar && ;fn lqus tkus dk vf/kdkj okLrfod gS && rc vfHk;qDr dks mlds fo:) i{kdFku dh tkudkjh gksuk pkfg, && mls ;g Hkh tkudkjh gksuk pkfg, fd mlds fo:) D;k lk{; gS && mls mldk [kaMu djus dk volj Hkh fn;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼1962½ , lh 322 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 11 ¼12½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 40¼1½ && tk¡p inkkjh dh mifLFkfr esa ugha dh xbZ && izkjafHkd fjiksVZ dh izfr iznÙk ugha && nLrkost ugha fn[kk, x, && ek¡x ds ckotwn lk{; is‘k djus dk volj ugha fn;k x;k && tk¡p rFkk in ls gVk;k tkuk fof/k dh n`f"V ls nks"kiw.kZA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 1669 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 12 ,oa 13 ¼13½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 40¼1½ && vopkj ds vkjksi && lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lkfcr vFkok uklkfcr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk && lk{; is‘k djus dk volj fn;k tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 14 ¼14½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 40¼1½ && in/kkjh dk gVk;k tkuk rFkk fujgZ fd;k tkuk _tq tk¡p ij vk/kkfjr ugha && uSlfxZd U;k; dk fu;e dk vfrØfer && vkns‘k vfHk[kaMuh;A 1998¼2½ ts ,y ts 303 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 101 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 14 ¼15½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 14 && _tq O;ogkj dk vf/kdkj && uSlfxZd U;k; dk lkjHkwr vo;o gS && bl vuqPNsn ds v/khu vk‘okflr lerk dh izR;kHkwfr dk ;g lekdfyr Hkkx gSA , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 101 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 14
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.4.1996 (Annexure P-5) of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Betul (the Prescribed Authority) by which the petitioner has been removed from the office of Surpanch of Shahpur Gram Panchayat under Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). He has also assailed the appellate order dated 18.3.1997 passed by the Additional Collector and the revisional order dated 24.11.1997 passed by the Commissioner by which the impugned order of the SDO has been upheld.
2. The petitioner was Surpanch of Gram Panchayat, Shahpur. He was directly elected to this office in the year 1994. A show cause notice was issued to him by respondent No.4 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Betul on 30.10.1995 in which fifteen charges were levelled against him. That is annexure P-1. He submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 10.11.1995 giving his explanation on each charge. He also requested for time to produce some more documents and adduce oral evidence. That reply is Annexure P-2. He submitted another application on the same date for permitting him to examine witnesses in support of his defence. On 13.11.1995 he submitted another application to give him hearing on his application for production of witnesses. No witness was examined by the SDO in support of the charges nor the petitioner was permitted to examine any witness. By the impugned order dated 26.4.1996 (Annexure P-5) the petitioner was removed from the office of the Surpanch. This order shows that the reply to the show-cause notice was considered in light of the report of the preliminary inquiry submitted by the BDO. A copy of this report or any document was not supplied to the petitioner. No witness was examined in his presence by the SDO. No document was produced or exhibited. There was no question of any cross-examination of these witnesses by the petitioner as none was produced. The petitioner was also not given any opportunity to produce his witnesses.
3. The substance of the accusations against the petitioner was that he gave pattas of several pieces of land for construction of houses to persons who were not eligible. That was the subject of charges No.8 to 15. The other charges were that the petitioner was negligent in not taking proper interest in the watering of plants in a garden, he got the road constructed by entrusting the work to the Tribal Welfare Department and not to Rural Engineering Department, he did not arrange proper supply of water from the tube-well, he did not get the drains cleaned and he did not give proper notice to the villagers for the meeting of the Gram Sabha which was held on 20.8.1995. It is clear from the nature of the charges against the petitioner that these could be established by documentary and oral evidence. None of the seven persons who were given pattas was examined by the SDO during the enquiry. It was the case of the petitioner that many of these persons were shown as landless in the list supplied by the Tehsildar. The impugned order of the SDO does not show that he considered this aspect. Similarly the question of proper maintenance of the garden and water supply could be examined if the witnesses had come forward either to prove or disprove those charges.
4. The petitioner's case is that the inquiry envisaged under Section 40 of the Act should have been held in his presence it was necessary to examine witnesses in his presence so that he could cross-examine them to test their verity. A report of the preliminary inquiry should also have been supplied to the petitioner and the documents on which reliance was placed should have been given an opportunity to adduce his own evidence. No reliance could be placed on the inquiry which was held behind the back of the petitioner. Show-cause notice given to the petitioner was an idle formality when he was not given any opportunity to rebut material collected in the preli
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
