Natural justice principles must be adhered to in disciplinary actions, focusing on substantial fairness over procedural formality.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 24 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 1524 of 2024 LOCHAN SINGH TIDGAAM AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION No. 1529 of 2024 VIRENDRA NAGPURE AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 22669 of 2024 DHANRAJ DAMAHE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vijay Chandra Rai - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Akshansh Shrivastava Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

ORDER All these cases relate to same matter, therefore, they were analogously heard and are being decided by this common order.

2. In W.P. No. 1524 of 2024 and W.P. No. 1529 of 2024, the orders passed under Section 89 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 has been put to challenge whereby recovery has been ordered against the petitioners therein. In W.P. No. 22669 of 2024, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR order of dismissal of the petitioner therein is put to challenge who was working on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and as a consequence to findings arrived at against him in course of proceedings under Section 89 , he has been dismissed from service.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the proceedings under Section 89 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993(“Adhiniyam 1993” for short), the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing and by scuttling the rules to ensure fair chance and fair opportunity, the impugned orders have been passed against the petitioner saddling recovery under Section 89 of Adhiniyam 1993.

4. By heavily relying on the order sheets drawn by the authority under Section 89 and placed on record as Annexure P/3 in W.P. No. 1524/2024, it is argued that the authority registered the case on 16-06-2022 and the respondents in the proceedings i.e. the petitioner appeared on 12-07- 2022. By juxtaposing the show-cause notice Annexure P/4 issued to the then Panchayat Coordination Officer and the then Secretary Dinesh Lilhare dated 16-01-2023 with the order sheet dated 07.10.2023, it is contended that there has been failure of opportunity of hearing.

5. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel for the State that proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and the proceedings were continued in proper manner.

6. Upon hearing the rival parties and on perusal of the order-sheets of the proceedings drawn by the authority, it is seen that on 16-06-2022, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR authority first time had drawn the proceedings and directed notices against the respondents therein and the respondents appeared and submitted their reply on 12-07-2022. On the next date, the Gram Rojgar Sahayak was present but Sarpanch and Secretary absented. On 13.09.2022, the Secretary presented in the proceedings and on 10-10-2022, all the respondents absented from the proceedings but on 14-11-2022, all the respondents presented in the proceedings. On 12-12-2022, the then Secretary presented in the proceedings but remaining respondents were absent. On the same date, the authority directed to keep the Gram Rojgar Sahayak present otherwise apart from imposing penalty in financial terms, action for termination of services shall be initiated.

7. On the next date fixed i.e. 09-01-2023, the Gram Rojgar Sahayak and the then Secretary were present and the authority directed that apart from Gram Rojgar Sahayak and the then Secretary, the then Panchayat Coordination Officer, Lochan Singh Pidgam as well as the then Secretary, Dinesh Kumar Lilhare should be summoned on the next date because they also seem to be liable in the matter.

8. On the next date, all the parties appeared and put the blame on the Gram Rojgar Sahayak and the authority directed the recovery to be made of an amount of Rs. 2,