Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Vidhyadevi Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 31 January, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.1180/2017
(Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture
Marketing Board & Others)
Gwalior, Dated : 31.01.2018
Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri S.P. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the Managing Director, M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board (MP) disqualifying the petitioner, who was working as Chairman of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sabalgarh, District Morena, for holding the Office of the Chairman and thereby removing her from the post invoking provisions of Section 55 (1) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1972 (for short Adhiniyam) and further disqualifying her to be eligible to be elected as Member of Mandi Samiti for a period of 06 years.
2. It is petitioner's contention that the allegation against the petitioner is that her brother-in-law Badshah Singh Rawat was involved in cutting of Sheesham trees from the premises of Mandi Board and a case has been registered at Police Station, Sabalgarh on 04.09.2015 registering Crime No.342/15 under the provisions of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, as a result SDO Sabalgarh, District Morena has imposed a fine of Rs.34,802/- on Badshah Singh Rawat. It is further alleged that since loss to the Mandi property has been caused by her relative, which is against the provisions of law and therefore she is responsible for the acts of her relative, she has failed to discharge her duties as Chairman of the Mandi Board resulting in the impugned order.
2HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others)
3. Petitioner's counsel submits that there is not a specific complaint against the petitioner. She has unblemished record and is a widow belonging to OBC Category, but has been falsely implicated in a case, which has no co-relation with the petitioner, on the instigation of sitting MLA of Sabalgarh Constituency from the ruling party, whose relative is a Member in the Mandi Board and who is annoyed. It is further averred that because of the petitioner, his relative has not been able to occupy the Chair of Chairman, thus, in connivance with the authorities, a false and fabricated case has been registered and the petitioner has been removed from the post of Chairman.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 55 (1) of the Adhiniyam have not been complied with, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and in fact no enquiry report was ever forwarded to the petitioner showing the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. He has drawn attention of this Court to the notice, which was issued on 05.01.2016, in which the allegation was made that the petitioner's brother-in-law was involved in cutting of 03 Sheesham trees, remains of which were recovered from Ara-machine. She had submitted her reply as is contained in Annexure P/5 clearly denying the charges and has categorically mentioned that if any enquiry has been conducted by the Joint Director, Gwalior, then it is false and fabricated and influenced by political reasons. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed a Panchnama from the 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) employees of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sabalgarh to point out that none of the employees had any personal grievance against the petitioner and FIR was lodged after much delay on 04.09.2015, whereas the incident was shown to be that of 29.07.2015, on which date a meeting of Board of Directors was convened and minutes of which had been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/7.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is apparent from the minutes of the meeting that the meeting was convened on 29.07.2015 at 12.00 Noon, whereas in the FIR, the time of the incident has been mentioned as 12.00 to 16.00 hours on 29.07.2015. This meeting continued late in the evening and several decisions were taken in the said meeting, therefore, the petitioner was not available at the place of the occurrence and if any incident would have taken place on the said date, then since the meeting of the Board of Directors was going on in the same premises, it would have been brought to her notice immediately. Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Bansmani v. State of MP & Others as reported in 1980 JLJ 60, wherein the ratio of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that under the Panchayat Act, the nature of the proceedings to remove a person as a Member or President, are quasi- judicial and order of removal should give reasons and principles of natural justice should be followed. The authority 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) passing the order should give reasons in support of the order removing person from the Office so as to indicate why explanation submitted is not acceptable. The material in support of the charge is to be disclosed to the petitioner and if these ingredients are not fulfilled, then it cannot be held that the petitioner was given proper opportunity of showing cause. It has been held that the order of removal affects the valuable right of a person to hold Office as a Member or as President until the expiry of the term and this valuable right is curtailed by the order of removal and the finding of misconduct, on which such an order is based, casts a stigma on the public life of the person.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab & Others as reported in (2001) 6 SCC 260, wherein the ratio of the law laid down is that in a democracy governed by rule of law, once elected to an office in a democratic institution, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law. Removal from such an office is a serious matter. It curtails the statutory term of the holder of the office. A stigma is cast on the holder of the office in view of certain allegations having been held proved rendering him unworthy of holding the office which he held. The removal from office on the ground of abuse of the powers has been examined and in para 9 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) meaning of the word "abuse" has been explained and thereafter the authorities are required to examine whether a singular or casual aberration or failure in exercise of power is sufficient to constitute an act involving willful abuse or intentional wrong or plurality of aberration or failure in exercise of power involving dishonesty of intention. It has been held that a singular or casual aberration or failure in exercise of power is not sufficient to constitute "abuse of powers".
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this High Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh Rawat v. State of MP & Others as reported in 2003 (4) MPHT 309, wherein it has been held that until and unless the petitioner is found guilty of the charge and the charge is established, the petitioner could not be fastened with the penalty of removal.
9. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of MP & Others as reported in 2005 (4) MPHT 25, in which it has been held that a preliminary enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner alongwith show cause notice and the relevant documents were not supplied to him and neither opportunity of cross-examination was given nor case was fixed for cross-examining witnesses, then it cannot be said that reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the person and, therefore, quashed the order of removal of the Member of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. In this backdrop, the 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents-Mandi Board has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Maru Bai v. State of MP as reported in 2017 (4) MPLJ 468, wherein the ratio of law laid down by the High Court is that removal of Chairman of Marketing Committee for being negligent and failing to perform her duties can be passed and the contention of the petitioner that a detailed enquiry was not conducted has been rejected holding that Section 55 of the Adhiniyam does not speak of elaborate enquiry as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Only a reasonable opportunity is to be given to the delinquent officer to show cause as to why the action be not taken against him.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that a complaint Annexure R/1 was received from Rakesh Singh Kushwah dated 22.08.2014 making certain allegations against Badshah Singh Rawat. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted on such complaint, which has been enclosed as Annexure R/1A. Second complaint is enclosed as Annexure R/1B and third as Annexure R/1D. Report Annexure R/1D talks of acceptance of undue favour and interference in the official work which also makes a mention that 04 trees of Sheesham were removed by the Chairman and this report has been filed by the SDO Sabalgarh, District Morena.
7HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) Annexure R/2 is a complaint addressed to SDO Sabalgarh, which makes a mention of felling of the trees due to joint involvement of the Mandi Chairman and her brother-in-law Badshah Singh Rawat.
12. Thereafter Annexure R/3A is the report submitted by the Joint Director, Mandi Board to the Managing Director, in which it is mentioned that on 05.08.2015, a complainant was made by Smt. Babuli W/o Shri Godhan Rawat, in which she has mentioned that on 29.06.2015, there was a meeting of the Mandi Samiti. When she had come to participate in the said meeting, she had seen 04 Sheesham trees, but when she had come to Sabalgarh Mandi on 29.07.2015 to participate in the meeting, she did not find 04 trees of Sheesham. Some people had informed her that Badshah Singh Rawat got those trees cut. When she had asked Chowkidar Raghuwar Dayal Rawat, he also informed that Badshah Singh Rawat got the trees cut, then she had made a complaint to the SDO (Revenue), Sabalgarh, who recovered these trees from Ara-machine of Siyaram Gond. Another complainant Amar Singh Kushwah also narrated the similar story that when he had come to participate in the meeting on 29.07.2015, he was informed by certain persons that trees were cut by Badshah Singh Rawat. Same was the version of MLA Representative Shri Ram Dayal Rawat and Smt. Kapoori Devi Rawat. Chowkidar Kok Singh Kushwah gave details of cutting of 02 trees. Raghuwar Dayal Rawat gave description of cutting of 03 Sheesham trees by Badshah 8 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) Singh Rawat. Ramesh Chand Sharma, ASO Mandi Samiti Sabalgarh gave details of cutting of 02 trees whereas Gyanendra Singh talked of cutting of 03 trees. Rajendra Singh Gurjar gave intimation about cutting of 04 trees.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to these orders and submits that there is a clear case of interference in the work of Mandi Samiti and causing loss to the property of the Mandi, for which a fine of Rs.34,802/-, i.e., double the cost of market value of the wood, has been imposed by SDO Sabalgarh on Badshah Singh Rawat and on the basis of such contention prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
14. In the above backdrop, the law laid down by this High Court in the case of Biharilal Tikaram v. Government of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 1983 MPLJ 553 was taken into consideration, in which the ratio is that if show cause notice is given to delinquent officer and his reply is taken, then absence of personal hearing will not vitiate the provisions of Section 55 of the Adhiniyam and enquiry was held to be valid. In this background, the High Court also held that action against the delinquent officer under Section 55 and then provisions of Section 59 does not give an alternative and efficacious remedy to the delinquent officer so as to debar him from invoking the powers of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
15. It is apparent from Annexure R/3A, which is the report forwarded by the Joint Director, Madhya Pradesh State 9 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) Agriculture Marketing Board, Gwalior, to the Managing Director, which form the backbone of the impugned order that complainant Babuli categorically complained about not seeing 04 Sheesham trees, which she had seen on 29.06.2015 when she had come to participate earlier in the meeting. When she returned on 29.07.2015 to participate in the meeting, she was informed that Badshah Singh Rawat had cut those trees. When this statement is cross-checked and verified from the FIR and the minutes of the meeting dated 29.07.2015 as contained in Annexure P/7, then it is apparent that FIR Annexure P/6 reveals time of the incident, i.e., felling of the trees between 12.00 Noon to 4.00 PM on 29.07.2015, whereas the meeting was scheduled at 12.00 Noon and as per the minutes Annexure P/7, it commenced at 12.00 Noon. Therefore, Babuli, who was present in the meeting and her name appears at Sr. No.13 in the minutes and had seen that Sheesham trees were not in their place prior to 12.00 Noon and their remains were there, therefore, there is a direct mis-match between the FIR and the statement of Babuli. Similarly, Babuli, Amar Singh Kushwah, Ram Dayal Rawat, Smt. Kapoori Devi are all hearsay witnesses.
16. Kok Singh Kushwah deposed that in the first week of July, two Sheesham trees were cut at the instance of Badshah Singh Rawat. He had not given any intimation about such happening. Raghuwar Dayal Rawat mentioned before the Inquiry Officer that 03 trees were cut in presence of the 10 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) Chairman and admittedly the Chairman was in the meeting between 12.00 Noon to 4.00 PM on 29.07.2015, but this aspect has not been considered by the Inquiry Committee. Ramesh Chand Sharma did not give any specific name, but said that he was informed that 02 Sheesham trees were cut by the relatives of the Chairman. Gyanendra Sharma, Assistant Sub-Inspector Mandi Samiti said that in the first week of July, said trees were cut and their number was three. Rajendra Singh Gurjar deposed that on 29.07.2015, there was a discussion that 3-4 trees have been cut and Chowkidar had informed that they were cut by Badshah Singh Rawat. All these statements are contradictory and not corroborated, yet a finding has been recorded by the Enquiry Committee consisting of three officials of Mandi Board, Gwalior, Regional Office; two of them were Assistant Grade-I and the third one was Assistant Sub-Inspector, that 04 Sheesham trees were cut, which complaint was found to be correct. This Inquiry Committee did not make any efforts to either seek version of Badshah Singh Rawat or of Chairman of the Mandi Committee.
17. A complaint was made by 04 persons on 30.07.2015 to SDO (Revenue), Sabalgarh, but FIR was lodged on 04.09.2015, whereas SDO already had intimation about such alleged acts. SDO Sabalgarh conducted enquiry on a request by the Managing Director of the Mandi Board seeking his comments on the show cause notice dated 04.07.2015 issued to Smt. Vidya Devi; but neither any show cause notice dated 11 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) 04.07.2015 is on record nor that is the subject-matter which resulted in removal of the petitioner. If this report of the SDO is taken into consideration, then it is about mis-management of the affairs of the Mandi by the petitioner. When there was such report already on record, then the respondents' counsel was asked to explain that what was the reason to issue another show cause notice Annexure P/4 dated 05.01.2016 and why the subject-matter of the inquiry as was conducted by the SDO was not included in the subject-matter of show cause notice dated 05.01.2016, the learned counsel for the respondents have failed to reply such query.
18. From the above discussions and perusal of the show cause notice Annexure P/4, it is apparent that a copy of the enquiry report of the Office of Joint Director was never enclosed alongwith the show cause notice seeking reply of the petitioner. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Bansmani (Supra), wherein in para 6 it has been held that the material in support of this charge was also not disclosed to the petitioner and it appears that in support of all these charges the Government relied upon the material collected by the Additional Collector in the ex parte enquiry conducted by him as also on this inquiry report, neither the report nor the material collected in the inquiry was disclosed to the petitioner and then there is no reason as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable, the High Court held that the petitioner was not given proper 12 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) opportunity to show cause as contemplated by Section 116 of the Panchayat Act, 1962 and quashed the proceedings.
19. In the present case also, the principle of natural justice requires that when the rights of the parties are affected, order should contain reasons. Similarly, as has been discussed above that not only the enquiry, which was conducted against the petitioner, was ex parte but she was not given any opportunity to go through the material based on which findings of the inquiry were recorded nor she was given an opportunity during the enquiry, in the light of the law laid down by this High Court in the case of Mahendra Singh (Supra), since preliminary enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner alongwith the show cause notice and relevant documents were not supplied to her, the enquiry cannot be said to be a properly conducted enquiry. On this ground also, the impugned order is not sustainable.
20. In fact, there is no material on record to hold the petitioner as guilty of getting the trees cut in the Mandi Prangan inasmuch as firstly the story of cutting of the trees is not a consistent story as can be seen from the inquiry report Annexure R/3A, but also the facts remain that the time of the incident has been shown from 12.00 Noon to 4.00 PM when the petitioner was in the meeting and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner's involvement was there in felling of the trees. Similarly, no recovery has been made from the petitioner or Badshah Singh Rawat, but recovery has been made from a Ara-machine and as has 13 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1180/2017 (Smt. Vidhya Devi Rawat v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others) been discussed above, different dates have been given by different witnesses on which trees were cut, which creates bona fide doubts about genuineness of the story of cutting of the trees. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the allegation of the petitioner that for political reasons in connivance with the members of the influential community, the petitioner has been removed and has not been allowed to complete her term is substantiated. Similarly, in the light of the law laid down in the case of Biharilal Tikaram (Supra), the respondents have failed to prove the ingredients of misconduct and also in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma (Supra), there are no ingredients of "abuse of powers" by the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order disqualifying her for a period of 06 years can also not be sustained in the eyes of law. Thus, the petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge Mehfooz/-
Digitally signed by MEHFOOZ AHMEDDate: 2018.03.01 15:54:23 +05'30'