SANJAY YADAV
Dinesh Pawar – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
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
2. Kailash Babu Rai Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2008 (3) MPLJ 648;
4. Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2008 (3) M.P.H.T. 26 (DB);
7. Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan AIR 1991 SC 471
1. Kunjan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2003 (3) M.P.H.T. 370 : 2003 (4) MPLJ 284;
3. Abdul Hasan Qureshi Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2008 (4) MPLJ 546 : 2009 (1) M.P.H.T. 322;
5. Neelima Misra Vs. Harindar Kaur Paintal AIR 1990 SC 1402;
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.