Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 858
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ms. Vandana Kasrekar, J.
Vikram Singh v. State of M. P. and others
Writ Petition No. 22978 of 2018 (Indore); Decided on 20.12.2018.
Vivek Sharan for petitioner; Pushyamitra Bhargava, Dy. Advocate General for respondent/State; Amit Raj for intervener.
Headnote: iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 40 & tk¡p & dk vFkZ lacaf/kr in/kkjh dks dkj.k crkvks lwpuk tkjh djuk ek= ugha & inËkkjh dks gVkus ds iwoZ foLr`r tk¡p dh tkuk gksrh gS & mls lkf{k;ksa dh ijh{kk vkSj izfrijh{kk djus dk volj fn;k tkuk vko';d gS & izR;FkhZx.k }kjk ,slh dksbZ tk¡p ugha dh xbZ & gVk, tkus dk vkns'k vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX;A vkb ,y vkj ¼2009½ ,e ih 3067] 2003¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 112 rFkk 2001 ¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 364 voyafcrA 2015¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 104 rFkk 2015¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 405 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 28 ,oa 29
Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M. P.) -- S.40 -- enquiry -- does not mean only issuance of show cause notice to concerned office bearer -- detailed enquiry has to be conducted before removing office bearer -- he must be given an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses -- no such enquiry conducted by respondents -- order of removal deserves to quashed. ILR [2009] MP 3067, 2003(2) MPLJ 112 and 2001(4) MPLJ 364 relied on. 2015(3) MPLJ 104 and 2015(3) MPLJ 405 distinguished. [Paras 28 & 29
Ms. Kasrekar, J.--1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order darted 13.9.2018, passed by the respondent No.2, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 4 dated 7.10.2017 has been confirmed.
2. One Sampatbai, resident of Girvar submitted complaint in Jan Sunvai wherein it was stated that the complainant is filing applications for taking the benefit of Indira Awas Yojna from last five years, but the benefit of the scheme has not been extended to her, but has extended to one Lakhansingh inspite of the fact that Lakhansingh is having a constructed house.
3. The SDO Revenue, Shajapur vide order dated 24.12.2016 directed the CEO Of the Janpad Panchayat, Shajapur to investigate the matter and submit the enquiry report. The CEO Submitted the enquiry report to the SDO, wherein it was contended that the enquiry was conducted by Assistant Development Officer of Janpad Panchayat and it was found that the petitioner being Sarpanch had extended the benefit to the respondent No. 6 against the rules and in the report it was recommended to initiate the proceeding against the petitioner under section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam ( in short ... “the Adhiniyam”) and at the same time it was also recommended to recover the amount of Rs. 70,000/- from respondent No. 6.
4. The SDO, thereafter, issued the show cause notice to the petitioner wherein, it was contended that the petitioner has selected the beneficiaries as per the list, but he extended the undue benefit to the respondent No. 6. In the said show cause notice, the petitioner was directed to submit the reply on the point that why not the petitioner be debarred from contesting election for further six years. The petitioner has filed reply to the said show cause notice.
5. However, the respondent No. 3 had found the reply of the petitioner vague and, without appreciating the merits of the case, passed the impugned order dated 7.10.2017.
6. The respondent No. 3 had taken the cognizance of the aforesaid matter and the case was registered before the respondent No. 3. The said respondent vide order dated 3.10.2017 found that the petitioner has misused the power of Sarpanch and his act was not in accordance with the rules of the Adhiniyam, 1999. The respondent No. 3 removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and debarred him from contesting election for further six years and at the same time directed the CEO Janpad Panchayat to recover the due amount from the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated 7.10.2017, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the respondent No. 2 wherein the respondent No. 2 by order dated 21.11.2017 stayed the impugned order dated 7.10.2017.
7. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2. Initially, the order impugned was stayed by the respondent No. 2. As the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch, therefore, one Sunil Kumar Mehroliya was appointed as Officiating Sarpanch. When the order dated 7.10.2017 was stayed by the respondent No. 2, Sunil Kumar Mehroliya filed the petition before this Hon’ble Court, wherein Sunil Kumar Mehroliya contended that the CEO had passed the order under section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, therefore, the appeal would lie before the Divisional Commissioner, who is higher authority than the CEO The writ petition filed by Sunil Kumar Mehroliya was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2017 in Writ Petition No. 20455/2017 by directing the Collector to decide the objection raised by the petitioner about the maintainability of appeal within 30 days and directed to maintain status quo till the objection was decided. Accordingly, the petitioner as well as the contesting party appeared before the Collector and the Collector forwarded the case of the petitioner before the respondent No. 2.
8. The respondent, thereafter, had issued notification dated 3.7.2018
