Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 5 March, 2014
Writ Petition No.3137/2014. 5.3.2014
.
Shri K.K. Gautam, learned counsel for petitioner. Heard on admission.
This is second time the petitioner is visiting this Court. Earlier, vide Writ Petition No.227/2013, petitioner sought direction to Sub-Divisional Officer, Bandhavgarh to complete the proceedings under Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 initiated against Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bharaula.
That, in pursuance to direction in Writ Petition, Sub- Divisional Officer, Bandhavgarh conducted the proceedings and found Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bharaula not guilty of the complaint lodged against them.
In complaint, there were eight charges levelled against Sarpanch/Secretary.
The charges and the respective reply recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer are reproduced hereunder -
1- cgksj cSxk@pjdk cSxk dk dfiy/kkjk ;kstuk esa dqvksa fuekZ.k&f'kd;r gS fd fgrxzkgh }kjk dwi 30 fQV rd [kksnk x;k vkSj 54214 :i;s O;; gksus i'pr~ Hkh dwi ca/kkbZ ugha gqbZ A ljiap@lfpo }kjk tcko is'k fd;k fd 30 fQV [kqnkbZ ds i'pkr~ dBksj iRFkj vk;k rFkk CykfLVax ds ckn Hkh ikuh ugha vk;k A mi;a=h ds ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij jkf'k vkgfjr dh xbZ gS A 2- f'kdk;r gS fd djgh jksM esa iqfy;k fuekZ.k dk dk;Z xq.koRrk fofgu gS A bl dk;Z ds 2-15 yk[k :i;s ewyHkwr en ls O;; gqvk A ljiap@lfpo }kjk mRrj fn;k x;k fd mi;a=h :: 2 ::
Writ Petition No.3137/2014.
ds }kjk ys vkmV nsus ds ckn mlh dh rduhdh ns[k&js[k esa gqvk gS A xq.koRrk Bhd gS A 3- xksiky ;kno dh f'kdk;r gS fd mlus es<+ ca/kku dk dk;Z djk;k Fkk ftlesa ljiap@lfpo us 5 QthZ gkftjh Hkj dj iSlk gM+i fy;k ijUrq ikapksa O;fDr deys'k ;kno] izdk'kpan vlkVh] ykyw pkS/kjh] Qwypan ;kno] eksgu ;kno vkfn us gyQukesa is'k dj dgk gS fd mUgsa mDr esM+ ca/kku esa 12 fnu dk;Z fd;k o mUgsa mldh etnwjh izkIr gks pqdh gS A 4- uyty ;kstuk esa ykijokgh ds dkj.k ikbi ykbu QwV xbZ A tkap o mRrj esa crk;k fd ejEer djkdj uy ty ;kstuk py jgh gS A 5- f'kdk;r dh xbZ fd ljiap dk dk;Z jkedq'ky mik/;{k }kjk fd;k tkrk gS A ljiap ds mRrj fn;k fd og vui<+ vkfnoklh efgyk gS vr% og jkedq'ky mik/;k; ls dk;Z esa enn ysrh gS A 6- vxyh f'kdk;r ;g gS fd e.khyky vlkVh vjcifr gSa fQj Hkh mls dfiy /kkjk dwi ;kstuk dk ykHk fn;k x;k blh izdkj Jhefr ek/koh xqIrk tks lEiUu O;fDr gSa bldks Hkh dfiy/kkjk esa dwi ;kstuk dk ykHk fn;k A bl lac/ak esa ljiap @lfpo dk dFku gS fd ftudk uke ch-ih-,y- lwph esa gksrk gS mUgh esa ls ;kstuk ds fgrxzkgh pqus tkrs gSa A bu nksuksa dk uke ch-ih-,y- lwph esa rRle; Fkk A 7- ;g Hkh f'kdk;r gS fd ljiap@lfpo iapk;r dk;kZy; ugha [kksyrs gSa A lfpo us mRrj fn;k fd dk;kZy; le; ij [kksyk tkrk gS A 8- vkjksi yxk;k fd jkstxkj xkjaVh ;kstuk esa lfpo ds fj'rsnkjksa dks gh yxk;k x;k gS A lfpo us mRrj fn;k fd jkstxkj xkjaVh e0iz0 dh izf'{k.k iqfLrdk esa ifjokj] fj'rsnkjksa ls iapk;r jkstxkj xkjaVh ;kstuk ds rgr dk;Z djokus esa dksbZ izfrcU/k ugha gS A :: 3 ::
Writ Petition No.3137/2014.
On a further enquiry the Sarpanch who is a tribal illiterate woman had categorically stated that the complainants ask for money and since she has not given the money, false charges are levelled against her.
On these material facts on record, the Sub-Divisional Officer recorded a finding that charges levelled against the Sarpanch are such that a case of financial irregularities is not made out as would call for an action under Section 40 of 1993 Adhiniyam. Rightly so, the petitioner though has relied on the enquiry report to bring home the submissions that the Sarpanch is liable to be removed under Section 40 of 1993 Adhiniyam. The provisions, however, stipulate that the office bearer of Panchayat can be removed on proved misconduct i.e. the gross negligence in the discharge of the duties under the Adhiniyam 1993 or found guilty of use of position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any relative in the Panchayat or any action for extending any pecuniary benefits to any relative, such as giving out any types of lease, getting any work done through them in the Panchayat by an officer-bearer of Panchayat or if his continuance in the office is undesirable in the interest of the public.
Since none of the charges levelled against the Sarpanch/Secretary were found to have led to the conclusion that they misconducted, the decision that the charges against them are not established cannot be faulted with as the same :: 4 ::
Writ Petition No.3137/2014.
is in the domain of finding of facts and the procedure adhere to by the Sub-Divisional Officer of examining the enquiry report and affording opportunity of hearing to the Sarpanch/Secretary is found to be is consonance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 40 of 1993 Adhiniyam.
Having thus considered, there being no merit in the petition, it is dismissed. However, no costs.
(SANJAY YADAV)
vinod JUDGE