Patnaik, CJ. --1. This is an appeal filed under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 30.7.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No. 9457/2007.

2. The relevant facts briefly are that the appellant was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Karri in District Shahdol in the State of M.P. on 13.11.1995 and thereafter was notified as Secretary of the Panchayat by the Collector, Shahdol on 12.10.1999. While he was working as a Secretary, he was served with a notice dated 21.6.2007 to show cause why the charge of Panchayat Secretary shall not be withdrawn from him because of the allegation against him that some essential commodities belonging to ration card-holders were found in his possession and prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against him was pending. The appellant submitted his reply and after considering the reply, the Collector, Shahdol passed an order dated 29.6.2007 for de-notification of the appellant as Secretary of the Panchayat on the ground that he was disqualified for the post of Panchayat Secretary. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, but the Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Collector by his order dated 16.7.2007. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 9457/2007, but by the impugned order dated 30.7.2007, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition summarily. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. Mr. Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that since the appellant in his reply to the show-cause notice had stated that the ration card holders had kept the essential commodities in possession of the appellant and had gone for plucking tendu patta, the appellant had not committed any misconduct as such. He submitted that affidavits have also been filed by the ration card holders confirming this fact and yet the Collector has taken a view that the explanation given by the appellant to the show-cause notice was not satisfactory. He submitted that the Collector should have first directed an inquiry conducted against the appellant before de-notifying him as a Panchayat Secretary under section 69 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act') and in such an inquiry the appellant who have had the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his explanation.

4. We have heard Mr. Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, submitted that since the material before the Collector, Shahdol did show that the' appellant had indulged in misconduct and that a criminal case had also been instituted against him under the Essential Commodities Act, the Collector thought it proper to withdraw the charge of Secretary of the Panchayat from the appellant by making a de-notification under section 69 (1) of the Act. He further submitted that the order passed by the Collector would show that appellant continues to be a Panchayat Karmi and that the SDO concerned has been directed to inquire into the allegations against the appellant.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Collector, Shahdol has lost sight of the Madhya pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules, 1999') while passing the order dated 29.6.2007 denotifying the appellant as Panchayat Secretary under section 69 (1) of the Act. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of the Rules, 1999 states that except otherwise provided by or under these rules, they apply to all persons employed in connection with the affairs of inter alia the Gram Panchayat and discharging the functions of Gram Panchayat, Secretary of Gram Panchayat is employed in connection with the affairs of Gram Panchayat and discharging the functions of Gram Panchayat. Hence, the Rules, 1999 are applicable to him. It is not disputed that the appel