Satyendra Kumar vs State of M.P. and Others

K.K. Lahoti, J.

Petitioner aggrieved by order Annexure P-14 by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sehora, in Appeal, and by order Annexure P-16 by Additional Collector, Jabalpur, in Panchayat Revision No, 6B/121/2002-03, dated 9-1-2003, has filed present petition. The appeal and revision were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner''s appeal filed before Sub-Divisional Officer was barred by time and petitioner could not explain the delay in filing the appeal.

Short facts of the case are that petitioner was working as Panchayat Karmi in Gram-Panchayat, Jhingrai. His services were terminated, which order was challenged by petitioner before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sihora in Panchayat Appeal No. 9/Panchayat/B 121/99-2000. The Sub-Divisional Officer by order Annexure P-4, dated 22-7-2000, allowed the appeal of petitioner and matter was remitted back to Gram Panchayat to decide it afresh in accordance with directions issued by S.D.O. The petitioner, who in spite of setting aside of the previous order was not re-instated, preferred writ petition before this Court, W.P. No. 6354/2000, seeking directions from the High Court that he may be reinstated because the order terminating his services was set aside by the S.D.O. During the pendency of writ petition, Gram Panchayat passed another order on 5-8-2000 by which petitioner was again removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi. The aforesaid order was produced in W.P. No. 6354/2000 as Annexure R-4/2. When the aforesaid matter came up for hearing before this Court, an objection was raised by the respondent that the petitioner''s services were terminated vide order Annexure R-4/2. Though the petitioner contended that the aforesaid order had not been served upon him, but the High Court by order dated 12-2-2001 observed "whether or not a copy of the order Annexure R-4/2 was served upon the petitioner is a matter which will be decided by the appropriate authority on the basis of evidence that may be brought on record before him," and directed the petitioner to file an appeal challenging the order Annexure P-18 before the appellate authority. This order was passed on 12-2-2001. Thereafter, petitioner obtained certified copy on 22-2-2001 and filed appeal before the S.D.O. on 1-3-2001. In the aforesaid appeal, an objection was raised by the other side that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the S.D.O. was barred by time. The S.D.O. vide order Annexure P-14 found that the High Court while passing order on 12-2-2001 has not passed any order in respect of limitation and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was barred by time and the petitioner has not explained the delay. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

Against the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred revision before Collector, but, aforesaid revision was also dismissed vide order Annexure P-16 on the same ground.

From the perusal of aforesaid case, it is apparent that order Annexure P-18 was passed when writ petition before this Court was pending and aforesaid order was produced before this Court in previous round of litigation and this Court specifically observed that the question whether or not a copy of the order Annexure R-4/2 was served upon the petitioner is a matter which will be decided by the appropriate authority on the basis of evidence that may be brought on record before him. Thus, the aforesaid question was kept open while deciding W.P. No. 6354/2000. It is also apparent that within a period of 30 days from the date of order dated 12-2-2001 appeal was preferred before S.D.O. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner was negligent and not filed appeal within a reasonable time. The question whether or not copy of order Annexure P-18 was served upon petitioner was kept open to be decided by the appellate authority. But from the perusal of order Annexure P-14, it appears that the appellate authority has not considered the question whether the aforesaid order was served on petitioner or not and decided the appeal on question of limitation while this Court disposed of aforesaid writ petition directing petitioner to file appeal. In the circumstances, limitation will start from the date 12-2-2001 when the writ petition was disposed of, and appeal was filed within a period of 30 days of passing of the aforesaid order. In the circumstances, the appeal was within time and ought to have been heard and decided on merit. The Sub-Divisional Officer while allowing the appeal, remitted back the matter to Gram Panchayat to decide it afresh. The Gram Panchayat again terminated the services of petitioner by order Annexure P-18. At that time, the matter was pending before this Court and this Court directed to file appeal. The petitioner filed appeal. The appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the aforesaid ground of limitation. In the circumstances, petitioner remained unheard by any authority.

In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, order Annexure P-14 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sihora, dated 14-10-2002, and Annexure P-16 passed by Additional Collector, Jabalpur on 9-1-2003 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to Sub-Divisional Officer, Sihora, who will restore the appeal and will hear and decide it on merits without going into the question of limitation. No order as to costs.