1. The appellant is an unfortunate father who lost his married daughter, who died an unnatural death within four years of her marriage. A case under section 304-B IPC was registered against the husband of his daughter and other members of his family on the complaint of the appellant. In that case, the accused persons being in-laws of the daughter of the appellant were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 26.9.2001 in Sessions Trial case No. 22912000. While acquitting the accused persons, the trial Court ordered for registration of a criminal case against the appellant under section 193, 194 and 195 IPC for giving false evidence to procure conviction of the accused persons in a case registered against them under section 304B IPC. The appellant on being tried for the offence under section 193, 194 and 195 IPC has been convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence under section 195 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 1.5.2003 in Sessions Trial case No. 180/2002. Aggrieved from his conviction, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking setting aside of his conviction.

2. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties for final disposal of this appeal.

3. Mr. V. K. Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the appellant initially supported the case of the prosecution on 22.2.2001 as advised to him by the police/investigating officer, but later on, when his conscience did not permit him to get the accused persons falsely convicted, gave evidence whatever according to him was the truth and this he did when he was cross-examined on 11.4.2001. Learned counsel further argued that even the trial Court in its judgment was not sure whether the false evidence given by the appellant was to procure conviction of the accused persons or to secure their acquittal. It is submitted that the appellant could not have been passed by the Collector and the findings as recorded by him. Against the said order second revision was preferred before the State Minister which was allowed by the Order dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure-P/5) and the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner has been set aside.

3. It is submitted by Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner have been set aside by respondent No.3 on the pretext that the procedure prescribed for identification of a Panchayat Secretary has not been followed and a show cause notice has not been issued to impose the penalty as specified under M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is contended by him that such finding is contrary to the record. The notice to show cause has already been issued by the competent authority i.e. Collector on 28.9.2006 and reply thereof was submitted by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the findings recorded by the Minister concerned, while passing the impugned order in second revision is unsustainable in law. It is further contended by him that the second revision against the order of first revision passed by the Commissioner is not maintainable, therefore, the order dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure-P/5) passed by respondent No.3 is illegal and without jurisdiction. In view of the said submissions, prayer is made to quash the order dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure-PIS) passed by respondent No.3 and to uphold the order dated 5.2.2007 (Annexure-P/1) of the Collector and order dated 5.6.2007 (Annexure-P/2) of the Commissioner.

4. Shri R.B. Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submits that the respondent No.1 was declared as a Panchayat Secretary, however, his services falls within the Panchayat service as defined under Rule 2 (i) of the M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. If some allegations have been imputed against respondent No.1, to remove him from any post including denotification from the post of Panchayat Secretary, then the procedure as specified under Rule 7 has to be followed. In violation of the