Sukhendra Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh and another

Rajendra Menon, J.—The petitioner was working as Panchayat Karmi and was notified as Panchayat Secretary. He was appointed as Panchayat Karmi on 27-10-1997 in Gram Panchayat Silpura, Block Rewa, District Rewa. Thereafter on 26-06-1998, powers of Secretary were conferred upon him by the competent authority exercising powers u/s 69(1) of Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam. Document Annexure P-1 is appointment order of the petitioner. However, vide resolution, an order was passed on 17-10-2005 and the services of the petitioner were dispensed with. The petitioner challenged the order by filing appeal before the SDO, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa, who initially granted interim relief but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The petitioner, in the meanwhile approached this court in W.P. No. 9985/2006 and disposed of the matter directing the SDO to reconsider the matter and take a decision. The SDO finally dismissed the claim of the petitioner and on revision and second revision having rejected by the Collector and Commissioner, respectively, the petitioner is before this court.

Challenge to the orders passed by the SDO, Collector and Commissioner are made on various grounds. Two of the grounds canvassed by Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner indicate that the services of the petitioner were brought to an end without issuing show cause notice to him. It is the case of the petitioner that show cause notices were never served on the petitioner and without hearing him, the action impugned is unsustainable. This objection of the petitioner is over ruled by the SDO, Collector and the Commissioner.

Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention to the first show cause notice allegedly issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-9 and points out that in this notice, there is no dispatch number and the date of issuing of this notice at page no. 1 is shown 23-09-2005, however, the first page does not bear the signature of any authority, but in the second page, the Sarpanch has signed the notice and date of issuing of this notice is shown to be 22-09-2005. However, the letter is said to have been served on 22-09-2005 and an endorsement is made showing that the petitioner has refused to accept this notice and therefore, the notice was returned back. Shri V.K. Shukla, invites my attention to the endorsement made in the second page in the left bottom and argued that this endorsement was subsequently manipulated only to show refusal of notice by the petitioner and Indicating that the notices were not properly served and therefore, without taking note of these notices, the authorities have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, which is unsustainable, Shri Shukla prays for interference into the matter.

With regard to the second show cause notice dated 22-10-2005, similar objections are raised, particularly with regard to discrepancy for the dates appearing in page no. 1 and 2 in the notice and Panchnama prepared indicate that the petitioner has refused to accept the notice. That apart Shri Shukla, points out that in the agenda issued for the meeting by the Pancayat to be held on 13-09-2005 vide Annexure P-7 on 10-09-2005, there was no agenda to consider the action to be taken against the petitioner but the same was included as Item No. 7 in the meeting held on 13-09-2005 and a decision taken to issue notice to the petitioner, accordingly contending that on 13-09-2007 the decision to issue show cause notice to the petitioner without there being proper agenda in this regard is illegal. The second ground of challenge is on the ground that the decision to issue notice was taken without properly convening the meeting, is therefore, illegal, accordingly emphasizing that the petitioner''s service have been dispensed with without proper notice and without hearing him, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks interference into the matter.

Even though Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate and Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 tried to emphasize that the notices have been served and they have produced some original record with regard to the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat, neither the dispatch register nor the specific documents showing service of notice on the petitioner is made available. It is seen that the SDO, Collector and Commissioner have recorded a finding that the petitioner''s services have been dispensed with after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner refused to accept the show cause notice, did not submit any reply and therefore, it is held that the petitioner failed to avail the liberty. However, while so holding it is seen that neither any proper inquiry was conducted into the matter nor evidence was recorded but a finding is recorded that the petitioner has refused to accept the notice, in this regard witnesses were not produced nor the petitioner permitted cross examination of the person who noticed that the petitioner has refused to accept the notice, merely on the basis of recording such finding, orders are passed by the SDO, Collector and Commissioner. From the original documents produced it is seen that neither the dispatch number nor any other document showing issuance of notice Annexures P-9 and P-10 are available, what is available is the only proceedings of the Gram Panchayat dated 13-09-2005 indicating a decision taken for issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, As far as Annexure P-9 is concerned, it does not bear any dispatch number and even dates mentioned in the first page and in the second page are different. Similar defects are seen with regard to Annexure P-10. This letter bears dispatch number No. 50 but it is dated 22-10-2005. However, in the second page, it is shown to be issued on 23-09-2005. If Annexure P-9 was issued on 22-09-2005 and it was served on 22-09-2005 as indicated in the panchanama prepared, it is not known as to what was the necessity to again issue notice on 23-09-2005 and marking it Dispatch No. 50 dated 22-10-2005. The documents produced by the respondents do not indicate that they have been correctly issued and there is much force in the contentions of the petitioner to the effect that show cause notices were not issued, the matter required inquiry and as the authorities concerned have proceeded in the matter without conducting a proper inquiry with regard to issuance of notices Annexures P-9 and P-10, therefore, the matter should have been remanded back. As a inquiry into service of notice is not properly undertaken, the impugned action should be quashed and the matter remanded back to the SDO.

Keeping in view the manner in which the matter has been decided by the statutory authority and considering the fact that proper inquiry into the matter is not concluded, it is a fit case where the matter should have been remanded back for a fresh inquiry.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders passed by the SDO, Collector and the Commissioner are quashed. It is directed that on the petitioner''s appearing before the SDO alongwith the certified copy of this order on 03-09-2012, the SDO, Huzur shall issue notice to all concerned, summon the original records, cause and inquiry with regard to issuance of notice to the petitioner, it service and for the said purpose shall record evidence of the parties, give opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses and thereafter take a decision in the matter afresh in accordance to law on or before 31-10-2012. Till the matter is so decided by the SDO, working at the Panchayat Secretary as is going on today shall be continued. With the aforesaid the petition stands allowed and disposed of.