Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Sanjay Nihale – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Panchayat – Respondent
ORDER :
Heard.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
2. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2018, passed by the respondent No.2, Collector, Barwani, District Barwani whereby, the services of the petitioner, who was posted as Panchayat Secretary has been terminated on the ground of misconduct, as it was alleged that the petitioner obtained various amounts from persons under the P.M. Avas Yojana.
4. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that this Court while passing the interim order in favour of the petitioner on 25.07.2018, has already observed that the impugned order dated 01.05.2018 has been passed by the Collector without any jurisdiction, as according to Sub-Rule 4 and 5 o
The Collector acted without jurisdiction in terminating the Panchayat Secretary's services, as the authority lies with the CEO, Zila Panchayat under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service Rules.
The Collector lacks authority to suspend a Panchayat Executive Officer, highlighting the independence of Gram Panchayats and mandating adherence to principles of natural justice in disciplinary actio....
Suspension orders must adhere to procedural requirements and be reviewed within 90 days; authority for disciplinary actions against Panchayat Executive Officers rests with local Gram Panchayats, not ....
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
