Mool Chand Soni vs State of M.P. and others

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

Ms. June Choudhary, learned senior counsel with Ms. Jailaxmi Aiyer, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Shri Om Namdeo, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents.

Heard on the question of admission.

The Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi vide order dated 28-11-1997 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Gram Panchayat Herrapur, Kodia.

Thereafter, exercising the powers conferred u/s 69 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ''Adhiniyam'') the second Respondent Collector, Katni appointed and notified him as Secretary of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat.

On receipt of the information from the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Katni vide his letter dated 1-8-2006 in regard to the Petitioner''s conviction for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 24-7-2006 passed by the Special Magistrate, State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, District Jabalpur, the second Respondent Collector, Katni denotified the Petitioner from the post of Secretary of the Gram Panchayat vide order dated 12-10-2006 (Annexure P/5). Feeling aggrieved the Petitioner has filed this petition.

The Petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the Collector (Annexure P/5) has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to him. He contends that the order being arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed. According to the Petitioner while passing the impugned order the second Respondent has not followed the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. He submits that the second Respondent Collector is not the competent authority to pass the order denotifying him from the post of Panchayat Secretary on the basis of the letter of the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat. In support the Petitioner relied on the judgment passed by this Court in case of Smt. Phoolwatibai vs. State of M.P. and others, 2002 (3) MPLJ 59 : 2002 (II) MPJR 395 and Narayan Singh Rajput Vs. State of M.P. and Others,

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, in my view, the contention raised by the Petitioner have no force. The Petitioner was appointed and notified by the second Respondent as Panchayat Secretary exercising the Powers conferred upon him u/s 69(1) of the Adhiniyam. Thereafter on receipt of the information about his conviction for the offences as stated above, the second Respondent denotified him from the post of Secretary.

In case of Smt. Phoolwati Bai v. State of M.P. and Ors. the dismissal of a teacher appointed by Gram Panchayat was under challenge. The services of teachers appointed by Gram Panchayat are not governed by Section 69 of the Adhiniyam but their appointments are governed u/s 70 of the Adhiniyam and rules made thereunder. In the circumstances reliance of the Petitioner on Phoolwati Bai''s case (supra) has got no relevance to the facts of this case. In case of Narayan Singh Rajput v. State of M.P. and Ors. (supra), the Panchayat Karmi was removed without following the procedure prescribed for removal of the Panchayat Karmi provided under the scheme. However, in the present case the order under challenge is of denotification of the Petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary passed by the second Respondent u/s 69 of the Adhiniyam. The M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 are not applicable for Panchayat Secretary. These rules are framed in regard to the other officers and servant of Panchayat as per Section 70 of the Adhiniyam, in the circumstances, the Petitioner''s contention that while passing the impugned order the provisions contained in M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 has not been followed is misconceived.

To challenge the impugned order by which the Petitioner has been denotified, the Petitioner is having alternative and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal provided under Rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules. 1995. The Appellate Authority under these rules is also empowered under Rule 8 to stay execution of the order appealed against pending decision of the appeal.

In view of the aforesaid, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal against the impugned order.

The petition is dismissed in limine.

No orders as to costs.