Ram Pratap Baiga vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

S.C. Sharma, J.—The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved the action of the Gram Panchayat in terminating the services of the petitioner by passing a resolution dated 17/03/2008. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the action of the Gram Panchayat in advertising the post of Panchayat Karmi in respect of Gram Panchayat Pahadiya District-Umariya.

The petitioner''s contention is that he was appointed as Panchayat Karmi by an order dated 01/11/1996 and without taking any action under the M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 a resolution was passed to discontinue the petitioner. The resolution is on record as Annexure P/2. The petitioner further stated that he was directed to continue by the Gram Panchayat however, another letter was issued on 17/03/2008 informing the petitioner that his services have been put to an end by the Gram Panchayat and thereafter an advertisement was issued on 26th May, 2008 inviting applications for the post of Panchayat Karmi in respect of Gram Panchayat in question.

This petition was filed in the year 2008 and an interim order was passed on 12/06/2008. The interim order is still continuing and the petitioner is very much in service. Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset has argued before this court that a Panchayat Karmi cannot be removed without following the procedure prescribed under the M.P. Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and therefore, as the procedure prescribed has not been followed, the resolution bad in law.

Learned Deputy Advocate General argued that as the petitioner has committed alleged misconduct he was rightly discontinued by the Gram Panchayat, however has not disputed the legal position as provided under the statutory provisions as contained under the M.P. Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of M.P. and Others, has held as under.

Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 provides that no order imposing on a member of the Panchayat Service any of the major penalties shall be passed except after a formal inquiry is held as far as may be in the manner provided therein. Hence, unless the procedure laid down in the Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 is followed, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat cannot be removed or reverted from the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the stand taken by the appellant that he could not have been removed from the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat or could not have been reverted to a lower post of Panchayat Karmi without an inquiry appears to be correct.

Nonetheless Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999 provides that the Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or Disciplinary Authority may place a member of Panchayat Service under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude is under investigation, inquiry or trial. In the present case, since; an inquiry into the charges of misconduct against the appellant has been ordered by the Collector, Shahdol, a disciplinary case is pending against him. That apart a criminal case for violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act is also pending against the appellant. Hence, the Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority or any authority to which the Appointing Authority is subordinate have the power to place the appellant under suspension. But instead of placing the appellant under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and pending the criminal trial, the Collector, Shahdol has reverted the appellant to the rank of Panchayat Karmi or has removed him from the post of Panchayat Secretary contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1999 as discussed above.

In the present case, the petitioner though was initially discontinued by a resolution dated 03/03/2008 was again taken back in service by another resolution dated 08/05/2008 and thereafter, again a resolution was passed discontinuing him from service and the impugned advertisement was issued on 26/05/2008. The proceedings on record reflects that no charge-sheet nor any inquiry was conducted at any point of time and therefore, in view of the Division Bench Judgment delivered by this Court as referred above, the impugned order passed by the Gram Panchayat Annexure P/4 and P/5 dated 08/05/2008 & 26/05/2008 are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to continue in service with all consequential benefits, however the Gram Panchayat shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct keeping in view the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 if need so arises in future.

With the aforesaid directions, petition stands allowed and disposed of.