Ram Lakhan Singh vs State of MP and others

Hon''ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon

Challenging the order-dated 3.6.1998-Annexure P/6, passed by the Minister of the Department concerned, interfering with the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Commissioner, in the matter of terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi, this writ petition has been filed. On the basis of certain resolution said to have been passed by Gram Sabha of the Gram Panchayat, it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi on 25.10.1995, vide order-Annexure P/1. However, due to interference of local persons and due to undue pressure exerted by respondent No. 6-the Sarpanch, it is stated that petitioner''s service was terminated without conducting any inquiry and without granting him any opportunity on 9.1.1996, vide order Annexure P/2. Challenging the aforesaid, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector and an interim order of stay was granted by the Additional Collector vide Annexure P/3 and thereafter the appeal itself was allowed vide Annexure P/4 on 27.6.1996. This order passed by the Additional Collector was challenged by respondent No. 6 before the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the same vide Annexure P/5, on 9.1.1998, but on interference being made by respondent No. 2, the Minister of the Department concerned, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Shri K.B. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that as service of the petitioner was terminated without due opportunity of hearing and without conducting any inquiry, the Collector and the Commissioner interfered into the matter and when the proceedings were pending before these authorities, the Sarpanch came out with a case that petitioner has submitted his resignation on 9.1.1996 and as this resignation was accepted, it is stated that the appeal should be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner did not submit the resignation on his own. He invites my attention to the complaint filed by the petitioner and the report of the Sarpanch filed alongwith the rejoinder and submitted that respondent No. 6 is a lady belonging to the scheduled tribe (Harijan) and she submitted a wrong report against the petitioner vide Annexure P/7, making serious allegations under the Harijan Act and by making such a complaint petitioner was pressurized to submit his resignation and when he submitted the resignation, the complaint was withdrawn by the Sarpanch vide Annexure P/8. Thereafter, petitioner made a report to the police authorities vide Annexure P/9 on 10.3.1996, but nothing was done. However, by contending that the resignation of the petitioner was obtained by coercion and fraud, therefore, ignoring the resignation the termination should be held to be illegal, which was not done by the Minister of the Department concerned, Shri Vishwakarma prays for interference into the matter.

Taking me through the documents and material available on record, Shri K.B. Vishwakarma, learned counsel, tried to emphasize that the Minister has simply interfered into the matter by holding that the petitioner has resigned and, therefore, he is not entitled to be reinstated. This according to learned counsel was not correct, as the resignation was obtained by mis-representation, fraud and coercion and when the Collector considered this aspect and found that the resignation was accepted by the Sarpanch, which is illegal, the Minister should not have interfered into the matter.

Refuting the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents/State argued that petitioner''s resignation was placed in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 14.3.1996, and a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat accepting the resignation. The resolution has been brought on record as Annexure R/4 and it is stated by the respondents that when the meeting was held on 14.3.1996, the entire house unanimously accepted the resignation and, therefore, the finding of the Collector that the resignation was accepted unilaterally by the Sarpanch without approval of the Gram Panchayat is not correct. That apart, it is stated that the petitioner is coming out with a false claim of being pressurized and coercion. Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that even if the contention of the petitioner was correct, as no action is taken by the police authorities on the complaint of the petitioner, the same has to be dis-believed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

On a perusal of the order passed by the Additional Collector and the Commissioner, it is seen that the Sarpanch raised various objections before the Additional Collector and the objections were two folded. The first objection was that the resolution for appointment of the petitioner was passed in an illegal manner, she was a Harijan and the resolution was got signed by her on misrepresentation. In the alternate, she also submitted that the petitioner has submitted the resignation and as he has resigned, no interference is called for. The Collector examined the records and found that a resolution is available on record, which seems to have been passed for appointment of the petitioner and, therefore, dis-believed the Sarpanch with regard to her first objection. As far as her second objection is concerned, the Collector held that if the appointment itself was not made, there is no question of resignation and as the resignation is accepted by the Sarpanch, but the appointment is made by resolution of the Gram Panchayat, the Collector has held that the Sarpanch has no authority to accept the resignation and, therefore, interfered into the matter. The Additional Commissioner has only upheld the order of the Additional Collector.

However, when the matter travelled to the Minister at the instance of respondent No. 6, the entire record was again re-appreciated and it was found that after his appointment petitioner had submitted a resignation, Annexure R/1, on 9.3.1996. The Sarpanch-respondent No. 6, accepted the same on 10.3.1996 and thereafter placed it for consideration in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, which was held on 14.3.1996, as Agenda No. 2, and in the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 14.3.1996-Annexure R/4, unanimously the resignation was accepted and the petitioner''s services brought to an end. It is because of these factors that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have interfered into the matter. In doing so, I am of the considered view that the respondents have not committed any error.

Respondent No. 6 is a Harijan lady and there is no reason as to why she would make a false complaint or a case against the petitioner. She had made a complaint against the petitioner, which is evident from the documents available on record filed by the petitioner himself as Annexure P/7 and thereafter she has withdrawn the complaint. From the return filed by respondent No. 6, it is seen that she was compelled to do so at the instance of the petitioner and other persons of the village, who were misusing her position as a Harijan. Be that as it may be, the fact remains that the Collector has refused to accept the ground with regard to resignation of the petitioner only on the consideration that the resignation is accepted by the Sarpanch and not by the Gram Panchayat in its Meeting. This finding of the Collector is wholly incorrect. The resolution dated 14.3.1996-Annexure R/4 clearly shows that after the resignation was presented before the Sarpanch, the matter was placed in the Meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 14.3.1996 and a resolution was passed unanimously by the Gram Panchayat accepting the resignation. Once the resignation is accepted by the Gram Panchayat, there is no reason for reinstating the petitioner. The Collector and the Commissioner ignoring these facts have directed for his reinstatement and in interfering with such an incorrect order the Minister of the Department has not committed any error.

As far as the contention of the petitioner with regard to misrepresentation and fraud are concerned, except for making vague allegations and a police report-Annexure P/9 on 10.3.1996, there is nothing on record to show that the contentions of the petitioner are correct. Even in the police report no action is taken and, therefore, an assumption can be drawn that the petitioner''s complaint was not found to be correct. Merely on the basis of vague allegation made by the petitioner to the effect that he was compelled to submit his resignation, in the absence of cogent evidence or material in support thereof, I am not inclined to accept the same.

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances finding the order passed by respondent No. 2 to be in accordance with law and no case for interference on the grounds raised, this writ petition stands dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.