IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 11256 of 2015 BETWEEN:-

VIJAY KUMAR PATEL S/O SHRI SALIKRAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BARACHH P.S. BEOHARI TEHSIL JAISINGH NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI HITENDRA KUMAR GOHLANI - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THE PRINCIPAL SECREARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURLA DEVELOPMENT GOVT OF M.P. MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER SHAHDOL SHAHDOL DIVISION DISTT. SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR SHAHDOL DISTT.

SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYT JAISING NAGAR DISTT. SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. VASUDEO KAHAR S/O SHRI RAM DULARE KAHAR BARACHH, JANPAD PANCHAYAT JAISINGH NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VEER VIKRANT SINGH – DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL )

………………………………………………………………………………………

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 08.06.2015 passed by the respondent no.1 in File No.F-d5-123 P-2/2011.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Panchayat Karmi and thereafter he was notified as Panchayat Secretary. A show cause notice was issued to him on 21.07.2011 thereby calling upon to explain as to why an action under section 69(1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 may not be taken against him as several financial irregularities have been committed by him.

3. The petitioner submitted his reply on 04.08.2011. Thereafter by order dated 02.12.2011 the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation on 09.12.2011 by personally appearing before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jainsinghnagar, District Shahdol. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 13.12.2011. By order dated 19.04.2012 the powers conferred on the petitioner under section 69(1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 were withdrawn by Collector.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which was registered as Revision No.20/Revision/2011-12 and by order dated 21.09.2012 the Additional Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol set aside the order of the Collector and the appeal was allowed.

5. It appears that Vasudev Kahar, who was a party to the proceedings, preferred a revision before the respondent no.1 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Shahdol, Division Shahdol and by the impugned order dated 08.06.2015 the respondent no.1 has set aside the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner, Shahdol Division Shahdol and restored back the order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the Collector, District Shahdol. It is further submitted that not only the revision was allowed but a direction was also issued by the concerning Minister to recover the amount.

6. Challenging the order passed by the respondent no.1, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Panchayat Karmi and the Panchayat Secretary are different posts. Even if the powers, as conferred under section 69(1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 are withdrawn, still it would not result in dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi.

7. Furthermore, so far as the question of recovery is concerned, the recovery can be made only after an inquiry is conducted under sections 82 and 91 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and thus it is claimed that the order for recovery, without any inquiry, is bad in law.

8. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that so far as a direction to effect recovery against the petitioner is concerned, the said direction is merely a direction to initiate the proceedings in accordance with law and the said direction cannot be treated as a direction to carry out the recovery