Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Vivek Rusia, J.
Nanuram s/o Virbhan Dhangar – Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 5822 of 2016
Decided On : 13-04-2017
Panchayat Secretary - Transfer and Attachment - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, Rules, 2011 - The court discussed the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rules, 2011, focusing on the administrative control, disciplinary actions, and transfer of the Panchayat Secretary. The court emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity and cross-examination as integral parts of the principles of natural justice, citing relevant case law. The court set aside the impugned order based on the violation of principles of natural justice and directed the Collector to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Panchayat Secretary, was attached from one Panchayat to another based on complaints of negligence and dereliction of duties. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the Chief Executive Officer lacked the authority to pass the attachment order and that it violated the principle of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the attachment order violated the principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not provided with a reasonable opportunity and the opportunity for cross-examination. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Collector to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority to pass the attachment order, violation of the principle of natural justice, and the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rules, 2011.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity and cross-examination as integral parts of the principles of natural justice, citing relevant case law. The court held that the attachment order cannot be sustained on the violation of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 8-8-2016 was set aside, and the Collector was directed to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed with the above direction.
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 8-8-2016 passed by the Respondent No. 3 by which he has been attached from the post of “Panchayat Secretary”, Gram Panchayat, Budi to Janpad Panchayat Pati, District Badwani.
2. Facts of the case are as under:—
The petitioner was initially appointed as “Panchayat Karmi” in Gram Panchayat, Walan. Thereafter vide order dated 3-10-2006, he was notified as “Panchayat Secretary” by the Collector, Badwani. Under section 69(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. The work of the petitioner as a Secretary was duly recognized and appreciated by the Higher Authorities and the petitioner was issued the Certificate under the Mukhyamantri Kanyadan Yojana, 2007 and 2008. Under the Swachchta Abhiyan because of the efforts made by the petitioner, Gram Panchayat also given the award. Vide order dated 16-1-2013, the petitioner was transferred from Gram Panchayat, Walan to Gram Panchayat, Budi. That by the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 8-8-2016 issued by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Badwani, the petitioner has been attached to the Janpad Panchayat, Pati, District Badwani. In the said order it is alleged that the Sarpanch and all the Panch of the Gram Panchayat has made a complaint against him which was got enquired by Block Panchayat Officer who has also recommended for removing the petitioner from Gram Panchayat Budi. Therefore, on the basis of the report and complaint, the petitioner has been attached to the Janpad Panchayat Pati, District Badwani. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat is not competent to pass the order of attachment under Panchayat Act and Rules made thereunder. There is no provision of attachment. The Panchayat Secretary can be de-notified, suspended and terminated but he cannot be attached by way of punishment. In the impugned order the allegations of negligence and dereliction of duties were levelled. Therefore, the impugned order is causing stigma. The violation of principle of natural justice has also been raised that without issuing show-cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order was passed.
4. While issuing notices to the Respondents, vide order dated 30-8-2016 the effect of order dated 8-8-2016 was stayed.
5. The Respondents filed the return along with an application [I.A. No. 376/2017] for vacating the stay order. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner has been absorbed under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 [in brief “the Rules, 2011”] and the appointing authority of Panchayat Karmi is Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat. It is submitted that the various complaints were received against the working of the petitioner and because of those complaints, a show-cause notice was issued on 9-12-2015 and 8-3-2016 but the petitioner did not appear to submit the reply. The Block Panchayat Officer has recorded the statements of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Budi who has alleged that the petitioner is not performing his duties. On 7-6-2016 the report was submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pati to the Respondent No. 3. In pursuant to the said report, the impugned order was passed in accordance with law. The attachment with the Janpad Panchayat is not a punishment. Therefore, there is no need to conduct a detailed enquiry. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and substance. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Collector, reported in 2012 MPLJ Online 21 : 2012 SCC Online MP 2358 has held that the Chief Executive Officer is having administrative and supervisory control over the Secretary. Therefore, he can place him under suspension.
6. The petitioner filed the rejoinder
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
