Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J., S.K. Gangele and Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Chandrapal Yadav v. State of M.P.
Writ Appeal No.651 of 2013 (Jabalpur); Decided on 6.1.2016.
Question of reference -- "In aforesaid circumstances, disagreeing to the judgment of Lalla Prasad Burman (supra), we refer it to the Larger Bench to examine the correctness of the aforesaid judgment in the light of circumstances that if a criminal case is registered against a Panchayat Karmi and he has been arrested in the said offence, whether he is still required to be served a show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing before withdrawing the powers of Secretary and whether Hariom still holds the field."
Held : If the person is initially appointed as Panchayat Karmi which is his substantive appointment against that substantive post, is asked to discharge the duties of Secretary, by virtue of de-notification would not result in reduction of his rank or demotion; but would result only in withdrawal of his powers of Secretary which he was asked to discharge as per the notification issued for that purpose. For doing so, there would be no need to give opportunity of being heard to such person as he could not have claimed any vested right in the post of Secretary of Gram panchayat, being appointed against the substantive post of Panchayat Karmi only.
For withdrawing that arrangement, the authority is not required to give prior opportunity to the person to whom such charge of Secretary has been invested as a temporary measure.
When a Panchayat Karmi is notified to work as Panchayat Secretary in accordance with the provisions of section 69 of the Act of 1993, he has to perform certain duties in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1993 and Rules made thereunder and further he enjoys a position in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1993. Under section 69 of the Act of 1993 no pay scale or pay of Panchayat Secretary is fixed neither his service conditions are prescribed nor there is a provision of disciplinary control. Hence, it cannot be said that the Panchayat Secretary was considered independent post or a promotional post from the post of Panchayat Karmi. Even under the Scheme of 1995 named as Panchayat Karmi Yojna a Panchayat Karmi is eligible to get an honorarium.
We further hold that the powers of a Panchayat Secretary appointed prior to coming into force of the Rules of 2011, could be suspended temporarily or withdrawn (de-notified) – without serving a show cause notice or by giving an opportunity of hearing in the event of registration of a criminal case against him.
We, accordingly, conclude that the legal principles stated in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman (supra), of the Division Bench to hold that prior notice should be given in such a case, is not the correct position of law. We hold that no prior notice or opportunity of hearing before suspension of the Gram Panchayat Secretary or for that matter withdrawal (de-notified) of such charge given to the Panchayat Karmi, is required to be given by the competent authority to the concerned employee much less who is facing serious criminal case. AIR 1962 SC 1704 and AIR 1958 SC 36 followed. 2008(II) MPWN 102, 2007(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 7, 2009(2) JLJ 432 and AIR 1974 SC 423 referred to. 2003(3) MPHT 370, 2006(4) MPHT 99 and 2007(1) MPLJ 343 distinguished.
(2) Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (M.P.) -- Rr.7 and 1(3) -- M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- S.69 -- Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995 -- M.P. Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 -- Rr.3 and 5 -- applicability of Rules -- Panchayat Karmi appointed under Yojna of 1995 -- by notification he invested with the powers of Secretary -- he facing criminal case -- later on powers of Secretary withdrawn -- before withdrawing such powers -- need not to provide hearing opportunity as per Rules. [Paras 14, 15, 20, 24, 27 & 31
(3) Interpretation of Statutes -- principle of -- rules -- cannot override the provisions of Act -- in interpretation of statute -- absurdity and inconsistency must be avoided. AIR 1958 SC 341 followed.[Paras 21 & 22
¼1½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 69¼1½ rFkk 71 && e-iz- iapk;r lsok ¼vuq'kklu rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1999 && fu-1¼3½] 4] 5] 6 rFkk 7 && O;fDr dh iapk;r dehZ ds :i esa fu;qfDr && vf/klwpuk }kjk lfpo dh 'kfDr;k¡ fufgr && mlds fo#) nkafMd ekeyk ntZ && mls 14-9-2012 ls 2-12-2012 rd dh dkykof/k ds fy, U;kf;d fgjklr esa Hkstk x;k && okn esa mlls lfpo dh ,slh 'kfDr;k¡ okil yh xbZ± && ;g voufr ;k inkoufr dh dksfV esa ugha vkrk && ,slh 'kfDr;k¡ okil ysus ls iwoZ fu;e 7 ds vuqlkj lquokbZ dk volj iznku djus dh vko';drk ughaA funsZ'k dk iz'u & ßmi;qZDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa yYyk izlkn oeZu ¼iwoksZDr½] ds fu.kZ; ls vlger gksdj] ge bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, mi;qZDr fu.kZ; dh 'kq)rk dk ijh{k.k djus ds fy, o`gr~ U;k;ihB dks funsZ'k djrs gSa fd ;fn iapk;r dehZ ds fo#) vkijkf/kd ekeyk ntZ gS vkSj mls rFkkdfFkr vijk/k esa fxjrkj fd;k x;k gS] D;k fQj Hkh ml ij dkj.k crkvks lwpuk dh rkehy fd;k tkuk ;k lfpo dh 'kfDr;k¡ okil ysus ds iwoZ lquokbZ dk volj iznku fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS vkSj D;k gfjvkse vc Hkh {ks= esa fLFkj gSAÞ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;fn O;fDr dks ewyr% iapk;r dehZ ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k gS ftl vf/k"Bk;h in ij mldh vf/k"Bk;h fu;qfDr dk laca/k gS] lfpo ds drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djus dks dgk x;k gS] vf/klwpuk jn~n djus ds izHkko dk ifj.kke mldh voufr ;k inkoufr ugha gksxk] fdarq bldk ifj.kke dsoy lfpo dh 'kfDr;k¡ okil ysuk gksxk ftlls bl iz;kstu ds fy, tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk ds vuqlkj mls izHkkoksUeqDr fd;k x;k FkkA ,slk djus esa] ,sls O;fDr dks lquokbZ dk volj iznku djus dh vko';drk ugha gksxh D;ksafd og xzke iapk;r ds lfpo ds in dk dksbZ fufgr vf/kdkj dk nkok ugha dj ldrk Fkk] iapk;r dehZ ds vf/k"Bk;h in ij fu;qDr gksus lsA bl bartke dks okil ysus ds fy,] izkf/kdkjh dks ,sls O;fDr dks iwoZ lquokbZ dk volj iznku djuk visf{kr ugha gS ftls vLFkk;h :i ls lfpo dk in fufgr fd;k x;k FkkA tc 1993 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 69 ds vuqlkj iapk;r dehZ dks iapk;r lfpo ds :i esa dk;Z djus dks vf/klwfpr fd;k gks] mls 1993 ds vf/kfu;e vkSj mlds varxZr fufeZr fu;eksa ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj fuf'pr drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djuk gksrk gS vkSj blds vfrfjDr og 1993 ds vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj fLFkfr dk miHkksx djrk gSA 1993 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 69 ds v/khu iapk;r lfpo dk osrueku ;k osru fu;r ugha gS vkSj u gh mldh lsok 'krs± fofgr gSa vkSj u gh vuq'kklukRed fu;a=.k dk mica/k gSA blfy,] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd iapk;r lfpo dk Lora= in ;k iapk;r dehZ ds in ls izksUufr in ds :i esa fopkj fd;k x;k FkkA fQj Hkh 1995 dh Ldhe uker% iapk;r dehZ ;kstuk ds v/khu ekuns; izkIr djus dk ik= gSA ge blds vfrfjDr vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gSa fd 2011 ds fu;eksa ds izo`Ùk gksus ds iwoZ fu;qDr iapk;r lfpo dh 'kfDr;k¡] mlds fo#) vkijkf/kd ekeyk ntZ gksus dh fLFkfr esa dkj.k crkvks lwpuk ;k lquokbZ dk volj iznku fd, fcuk vLFkk;h :i ls fuyafcr ;k okil ¼vf/klwpuk jn~n½ dh tk ldrh gSA ge] rn~uqlkj] fu.khZr djrs gSa fd [kaM U;k;ihB ds yYyk izlkn oeZu ¼iwoksZDr½] ds izdj.k esa dfFkr fof/kd fl)karksa }kjk ;g Bgjkuk fd ,sls izdj.k esa iwoZ lwpuk nh tkuk pkfg, Fkh] fof/k dh lgh fLFkfr ugha gSA ge vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gSa fd xzke iapk;r ds lfpo ds fuyacu ;k iapk;r dehZ dks iznÙk inHkkj okil ysus ds ekeys esa ¼vf/klwpuk jn~n djus½ ds iwoZ lacaf/kr deZpkjh dks de ls de tks xaHkhj vkijkf/kd ekeys dk lekuk dj jgk gS] mls l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk lwpuk ;k lquokbZ dk volj iznku fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 1704 rFkk , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 36 vuqlfjrA 2008¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 102] 2007¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 7] 2009¼2½ ts ,y ts 432 rFkk , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 423 fufnZ"VA 2003¼3½ ,e ih ,p Vh 370] 2006¼4½ ,e ih ,p Vh 99 rFkk 2007¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 343 izHksfnrA ¼2½ iapk;r lsok ¼vuq'kklu rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1999 && fu-7 rFkk 1¼3½9 && e-iz- iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 && /kkjk 69 && iapk;r dehZ ;kstuk] 1995 && e-iz- iapk;r lsok ¼xzke iapk;r lfpo HkrhZ rFkk lsok dh 'krs±½ fu;e] 2011 && fu-3 rFkk 5 && fu;eksa dk ykxw gksuk && 1995 dh ;kstuk ds v/khu iapk;r dehZ dh fu;qfDr && vf/klwpuk }kjk mlesa lfpo dh 'kfDr;k¡ fufgr && og vkijkf/kd izdj.k dk lkeuk dj jgk && ckn esa lfpo dh 'kfDr;k¡ okil yh xb± && ,slh 'kfDr;k¡ okil ysus ls iwoZ && fu;eksa ds vuqlkj mls lquokbZ dk volj iznku djus dh vko';drk ughaA ¼iSjk 14] 15] 20] 24] 27 ,oa 31 ¼3½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && dk fl)kar && fu;e vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ij vfHkHkkoh ugha gks ldrs && fof/k ds fuoZpu esa && fujFkZdrk vkSj vlaxrrk ls cpuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 341 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21 ,oa 22
Gangele J. -- 1. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.8.2013 doubted the correctness of the ratio laid down by another Division Bench in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman v. State of M.P. and others [2008(II) MPWN 101=2008(3) MPLJ 394], and has referred the following question for consideration of the Full Bench :
“In aforesaid circumstances, disagreeing to the judgment of Lalla Prasad Burman (supra), we refer it to the Larger Bench to examine the correctness of the aforesaid judgment in the light of circumstances that if a criminal case is registered against a Panchayat Karmi and he has been arrested in the said offence, whether he is still required to be served a show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing before withdrawing the powers of Secretary and whether Hariom still holds the field.”
2. Facts leading to passing an order of reference, briefly stated, are that the appellant was appointed as the ‘Panchayat Karmi’ by Gram Panchayat, Badaua, District Rewa. Thereafter, he was notified as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. After notification of the appellant as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, on 14.9.2012 a criminal case for offences under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. The appellant was taken into custody and thereafter was sent to judicial custody for a period from 14.9.2012 to 2.12.2012. On account of registration of criminal case against the appellant as well as his detention, by order dated 6.10.2012 he was de-notified from the post of Secretary by the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Rewa. One Chindalal Saket was given the additional charge of Panchayat Secretary by way of an ad hoc arrangement. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant before the Collector in revision which was dismissed vide order dated 11.3.2013. The order passed by the Collector was the subject-matter of challenge before the Additional Commissioner, who also affirmed the same. The appellant approached this Court by filing the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the order of de-notification of the appellant from the post of Panchayat Secretary was punitive in nature and it suffered from the procedural irregularity inasmuch as the same was passed de hors the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Service Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [hereinafter after referred to as the “Rules of 1999”]. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of de-notification on the ground that the same was rightly passed on account of registration of the criminal case as well as detention of the appellant in jail. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
3. As stated above, the Division Bench vide order dated 5.8.2013, took note of the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Hariom Singh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [2002(3) MPLJ 204], and decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman (supra), and doubted the correctness of the law laid down by Division Bench in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman (supra), and, inter alia, observed that when a criminal case is registered against the Panchayat Secretary and allegations of embezzlement of funds are made against him, de-notification of such a ‘Panchayat Secretary’ is in larger interest of Gram Panchayat and it would be inappropriate to continue such an employee as Panchayat Secretary. However, he may be permitted to continue as Panchayat Karmi and before passing an order of de-notification no opportunity of hearing is required to be given to such an employee. In the aforesaid factual background the order of reference was passed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rules of 1999 are applicable to Panchayat Secretary and he could neit
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
