Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 491
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjay Yadav, J.
Dinesh Pawar
Vs.
State of M.P.
Writ Petition No. 15396/2006
Decided On: 12.07.2011
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 to Panchayat Karmis and the requirement to adhere to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Panchayat Karmi - Termination of Service - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - [Rule 5, Rule 6, Rule 7] - The court quashed the termination order of the petitioner as the procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1999 was not followed. The court emphasized the applicability of the Rules to Panchayat Karmis and the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's services as Panchayat Karmi were terminated based on allegations of misconduct and misuse of funds. The petitioner challenged the termination on the grounds of non-compliance with the Rules of 1999 and lack of opportunity for a hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination order was invalid as the procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1999 was not followed. The court also held that the petitioner, being a Panchayat Karmi, is governed by the Rules of 1999 and is entitled to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the termination order, compliance with the Rules of 1999, and the applicability of the principles of natural justice in the disciplinary process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the applicability of the Rules of 1999 to Panchayat Karmis and the necessity of following the prescribed procedure, including framing charges and conducting an enquiry as per Rule 7. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary matters.
Final Decision: The court quashed the termination order and allowed the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Rules of 1999, including the possibility of placing the petitioner under suspension.
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. Heard.
2. Resolution dated 21-7-2006 is being challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. By said resolution services of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi, Gram Panchayat, Bijakwada, Janpad Panchayat Parasiya, District Chhindwara has been terminated.
4. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi of said Gram Panchayat on 13-10-2001 in accordance with Scheme, i.e., Panchayat Karmi Yojana, 1995.
5. That, there were complaints against the petitioner regarding misuse of funds of various scheme such as SGRY Food Scheme, Indira Awas Scheme, Midday meal. As also misuse of funds in purchasing materials for the Panchayat. These allegations paved the foundation for passing of impugned resolution.
6. Petitioner challenges the resolution on the ground that the scheme has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and on the basis of enquiry held behind his back.
7. Placing reliance on the decision in Kunjan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2003 (3) M.P.H.T. 370 : 2003 (4) MPLJ 284,- and Kailash Babu Rai Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2008 (3) MPLJ 648, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that being in the Panchayat Service, the petitioner is governed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is contended that since his service as Panchayat Karmi has been terminated without following the procedure laid down in the Rules of 1999, the same stands vitiated and is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, while retorting to the objections raised on behalf of respondent that, the petition against resolution is not maintainable, learned Counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the decision in Abdul Hasan Qureshi Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2008 (4) MPLJ 546 : 2009 (1) M.P.H.T. 322, has to submit that the resolution having been held to be an order is assailable before this Court, as it has the effect of terminating the service of the petitioner.
8. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 besides raising the preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petition have to submit that the petitioner having been appointed under the Scheme has been removed on the basis of misconduct after following the procedure laid down in the scheme. It is contended that the Panchayat found petitioner guilty of misconduct; therefore, he was removed from post of Panchayat Karmi.
9. Respondent No. 6 vide its return has to submit that the petitioner was afforded the opportunity of hearing by issuing show-cause notice. It is contended that the petitioner avoided to receive show cause; therefore, the Panchayat was constrained to pass the resolution as there were ample material on record indicating the misuse of Panchayat fund by the petitioner while working as Panchayat Karmi/ Secretary. It is urged that since lawful action has been taken against the petitioner no interference is warranted.
10. Considered the rival submissions.
Regarding the preliminary objection as to maintainability of petition because of availability of alternative remedy, it is observed that the challenge of termination order being on the basis of non-compliance of the Rules of 1999, an alternative remedy will not bar the writ petition; therefore, the objection raised regarding maintainability of the petition is negatived.
11. Petitioner is a Panchayat Karmi and as held in Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2008 (3) M.P.H.T. 26 (DB), the Rules of 1999 are applicable to such Panchayat Karmis, they being member of Panchayat Karmi. It was held therein :--
5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the Collector, Shahdol has lost sight of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules, 1999') while passing the order dated 29-6-2007 denotifying the appellant as Panchayat Secretary under Section 69 (1) of the Act. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of the Rules, 1999 states that except othe
