Satish Malviya vs Panchayat And Rural Development Department And Others

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 22/03/2017 and 02/01/2018, by which his services have been terminated

without holding any departmental enquiry.

2 The petitioner was appointed as Panchayatkarmi in the year 2006, later on, by order dated 19/07/2006, he was notified as Panchayat Secretary of

Gram Panchayat â€" Chowki. On 22/08/2015, the petitioner received a notice, thereby he was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 11.55 lacs in the

Gram-Panchayat' account, otherwise disciplinery proceedings will be initiated against him. In the said notice, the petitioner was also directed to deposit

the amount in compliance of the direction of the Jila Panchayat. The deposited the said amount. After obtaining the amount from which, material was

purchased. Jila Panchayat issued show-cause notice dated 03/09/2015 calling reply from the petitioner. In compliance of the said notice, the petitioner

submitted his reply and denied the allegations made in the show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted all documents against the allegations made in

the show-cause notice. After one an half year, vide order dated 22/03/2017, the impunged order has been passed, thereby, terminating the services of

the petitioner. After the order dated 22/03/2017, an appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed by unreasoned

order dated 02/01/2018. Being aggrieved by which, present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the petitioner is a Panchayat employee

and as per M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal ) Rules, 1999, the major punishment can be imposed to a Panchayat employee after

following the procedure prescribed under rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. The Rules of 1999 states that the services cannot be terminated without holding

an enquiry. In the present case, neither any charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner nor any enquiry has been conducted before passing of

the impugned order. In such circumstances, he prays that the impugned order be set aside. He further relied on the judgment passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat vs. Ganesh reported in SCC OnLine MP 5820 that the order passed by the Division Bench of this

Court has been considered by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Aehsan Patel vs. State of M.P. and others in Writ Petition No.4009/2017

decided on 27.4.2018.

4 The respondents have filed their reply and in the reply, the respondents have stated that the petitioner and co-employee have misappropriated

government funds as they have withdrawn the amount more than actual need and on verification, the said amount was found to be misappropriated by

the petitioner, therefore, he was directed to deposit the amount. In light of the aforesaid finding / observations, the petitioner deposited the same, which

clearly shows that the petitioner has misappropriated the government fund. When misappropriation done by the petitioner came to the knowledge of

the Authority, they issued show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation and deposited the amount. Answering

respondent, after considering all the allegations made by the petitioner has terminated his services. Looking to the seriousness of the matter and

misconduct committed by the petitioner, after conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner, his services have been terminated. The Appellate

Authority has rightly considered the appeal of the petitioner and found that for construction of new Anganwadi building, the petitioner withdrew, but no

perception was made. In light of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents submits that services of the petitioner have rightly been

terminated.

5 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6 In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is working on the post of Panchayat Secretary and neither any charge sheet has been issued to the

petition at any point of time nor any enquiry was conducted with the participation of the petitioner. The Court in the case of Ganesh vs. State of M.P.

reported in 2016 SCC OnLine M.P. 10360 relying on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case ofL alla Prasad Burman vs. State of

M.P. and others reported in [2008 (3) MPLJ 394] has held that the services of a Panchayat employee cannot be terminated without holding an enquiry

as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. The judgment passed in the case of Ganesh (supra) was subjected to scrutiny before Division Bench

and the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.338/2016 Gram Panchayat vs. Ganesh reported in 2016 SCC OnLine MP 5820 has affirmed

the order passed by this Court. Paragraph 4 and 5 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

“4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the Resolution No.5 and submitted that he was not a Panchayat employee but it has not been

disputed that his salary has been paid from the Panchayat. He has also drawn our attention to Para-34 of the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs.

Umadevi and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 and submitted that the order is contrary to the dictum of the Apex Court.

On due consideration of the aforesaid so also the fact that the respondent No.1 was working in Gram Panchayat since 1999 and without issuing any charge-sheet,

his service has been terminated. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of

the case. No case to interfere with the impugned order, as prayed is made out. The writ appeal has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.â€​

7 In the light of the aforesaid as no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and the procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1999 was not followed, the

impugned order passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed and is accordingly, quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the

petitioner in service; however a liberty is granted to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law in case if need so arises in future.

With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Certified copy, as per rules