Back
MADHYA BHARAT HIGH COURT, INDORE BENCH
NEVASKAR, SAMVATSAR, JJ.
Raichand Amichand - Petitioner
Versus
Sanchalak Gramodhar and others – Opponents
Civil Misc. Case No. 40 of 1956
Decided On : 21-09-1956
PANCHAYAT - Removal of Puncha - Inquiry - Compliance with Rule 38 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Rules - Principles of Natural Justice - Hindi Language - Official Language of the State - Authoritative English Translation - Article 348(3) of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a sitting member of the Gram Panchayat and Sarpancha, was removed from office after an inquiry conducted by the Director of Rural Uplift. The petitioner challenged the order of removal on the grounds that Rule 38 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Rules, which authorized the removal, was ultra vires and that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Rule 38 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Rules was not ultra vires and that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the use of Hindi as the official language of the State was not a violation of Article 348(3) of the Constitution, as an authoritative English translation of the relevant documents had been published.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 38 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Rules was ultra vires? 2. Whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the use of Hindi as the official language of the State was a violation of Article 348(3) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 38 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Rules was not ultra vires because it was framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the Panchayat Act and was not in violation of Article 348(3) of the Constitution. 2. The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice because the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and the Director of Rural Uplift did not rely on any material that was not obtained fairly and in the presence of the petitioner. 3. The use of Hindi as the official language of the State was not a violation of Article 348(3) of the Constitution because an authoritative English translation of the relevant documents had been published.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
SAMVATSAR, J.
The petitioner was a, sitting member of the Gram Panchayat, Suhagpura and was a Sarpuncha both of the Gram Panchayat, Suhagpura and the Kendra Panchayat of Mahidpur.
2. The accounts of the Gram Panchayat and the Kendra Panchayat which were maintained during the period the petitioner was Sarpancha of the Gram Panchayat and the Kendra Panchayat, were audited by the audit party and it noticed that there were numerous irregularities therein. The audit report was considered by the Department of Rural Development and it found it necessary to inquire into the matter. On a further scrutiny, it appeared to the Director of Rural Uplift, Madhya Bharat, that a charge-sheet should be served upon the petitioners and that the matter should be investigated further.
On 4-4-1956 the Director of Rural Uplift therefore served a charge-sheet on the petitioner and called upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the office of the Pancha. The petitioner gave a reply to the charges on 21-4-1956. On 1-5-1956 the Director of Rural Uplift gave a notice to the petitioner intimating to him that the hearing of his case was fixed on 8-5-1956 and that he should therefore appear in person on the said date along with such evidence as he wanted to adduce in connection with the charges framed against him.
3. On receipt of this notice, the petitioner engaged Mr. S. M. Kutumbale, Advocate, to appear for him during the inquiry before the Director of Rural Uplift. On 7-5-1956 the petitioner accompanied by his counsel went to the office of the Director and applied that his counsel be permitted to inspect the record pertaining to the inquiry. The prayer was however refused on the same day on the ground that the inquiry was a departmental inquiry and the relevant Government record could not be shown to the pleader. It is alleged by the petitioner that Mr. Kutumbale also asked for permission to appear on behalf of the petitioner during the inquiry but the request was turned down.
4. On 8-5-1956, which was the date fixed for personal hearing of the petitioner at the departmental inquiry the petitioner submitted three applications before the hearing commenced. By the first application the petitioner requested that eight witnesses examined during his absence be recalled for being examined in his presence and for being cross-examined, and further requested that 9 witnesses mentioned in the application be summoned for being examined in defence.
The second application contained a prayer for inspection of certain record and in the third application there was a request made to the Director to give a Dakhala that the permission to be represented by a pleader was refused to the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that no orders were passed on either of these applications ana the Director proceeded with the inquiry and examined the petitioner on the various charges levelled against him.
5. During the course of his statement, the petitioner informed the Director that he could not answer questions put to him unless he was given inspection of the necessary files. The prayer was granted and the hearing was adjourned to 14-5-1956 to enable the petitioner to look into the relevant papers before answering the questions put to him. On 14-5-1956 the petitioner was accordingly further examined and answered the questions put to him after looking into the relevant files. From the statement made by the petitioner, the Director was satisfied that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and was not a fit person to hold the office of a Pancha. He therefore ordered the petitioner to be removed from the office of the Pancha.
6. During the interval, programme for fresh elections to the Panchayats was published by the Collector. The petitioner decided to contest the election and filed his nomination paper but it was rejected by the Nirwachan Adhikari as by that time the Director, Rural Uplift had ordered his removal from the office. Aggrieved by this rejection of
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
