Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramji Singh Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3774
1 WP-14099-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14099 of 2019
RAMJI SINGH DANGI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.K. Tripathi - Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 15.07.2019, contained in Annexure P/1, passed by Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar.
2. Annexure P/1 is order passed by Commissioner in appeal under Section 91 of M.P. Panchayat Raj avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rule 03 of M.P. Panchayat Raj (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 against the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Sagar.
3 . Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jhagri, Janpad Panchayat Banda. A compliant was filed against petitioner by one Omkar Singh. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Sagar got the complaint inquired by Naib Tehsildar Behrol, Tehsil Banda. After receipt of report, show cause notice was issued to petitioner. Evidence of petitioner and complainant was taken and parties were also granted liberty Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 28-01-2025 2:34:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3774 2 WP-14099-2019 to cross-examine the witnesses. Construction work was also examined by Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services and Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department. Report was also received from said officers. Statement of petitioner and complainant was taken. Vide order dated 09.03.2018, petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch and was also disqualified to contest election for period of 6 years, and recovery of actual recoverable amount was ordered to be made after assessment by Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order. The appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed by impugned order dated 15.07.2019.
4. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that impugned order is passed in an arbitrary manner and contrary to principles of law. Work shown in show cause notice was collective responsibility of Gram Panchayat and petitioner cannot be singled out and held guilty. Allegations were made regarding wrong payment to wife of petitioner. It is submitted that only Rajkumari was having Tanker in Gram Panchayat and resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat, which was approved by S.D.O. There is no allegation regarding making excess payment without there being any work. It is submitted that inquiry was conducted in the office of Tehsildar and not on spot. Order dated 09.03.2018 was passed with malafide intension. It is submitted that four allegations were made against petitioner and none of them have been proved against him and no illegality was found in payments which were made by petitioner. Appellate authority failed to appreciate that order dated 09.03.2018 was passed on basis of report by Naib Tehsildar and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 28-01-2025 2:34:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3774 3 WP-14099-2019 inquiry report dated 02.02.2018. Said inquiry report was not final and Assistant Engineer has recommended further inquiry from Rural Engineering Services Department. The petitioner is removed in a casual manner. Sarpanch is an authority to make payment of completed work approved by Engineer and Secretary. On approval, payment was made, therefore, petitioner could not be held responsible. Petitioner was targeted malafidely. It is also submitted that impugned order has been passed after statutory period of 90 days without there being any extension of the same by the higher authority. In these circumstances, prayer is made for setting aside of impugned order passed by Commissioner dated 15.07.2019.
5. Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State submitted that show cause notices were issued to petitioner. Reply was received and proper opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examination was provided to the petitioner. Statement of several witnesses were recorded in inquiry and same was produced before prescribed authority. Petitioner was found to be guilty for misappropriation of funds. A reasoned and speaking order has been passed by appellate authority. There is no illegality and impropriety in the order dated 15.07.2019. Statutory period of 90 days for passing order under Section 40 is directory and not mandatory as held in case of Rajesh Barkade vs State of M.P. and others, in W.P. No. 18135/2017 vide judgment dated 01.02.2018. Allegations made against Secretary and other persons cannot be considered as petitioner has not impleaded them as a party. No interference is called for in the impugned order and the petition be dismissed.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 28-01-2025 2:34:59 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3774 4 WP-14099-2019
7. Petitioner has made allegation that order dated 09.03.2018 was passed malafidely by respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3 is not impleaded by name. Therefore, allegations of malafides against respondent No.3 cannot be examined by this Court behind his back. Therefore, ground of malafides raised by petitioner is rejected.
8 . Petitioner has raised factual grounds in the writ petition regarding there being no illegality in payment made to Rajkumari, no payment is made to Sandeep Singh and no illegality was found in making payment to firm Balaji Traders. Therefore, third allegation is vague and fourth allegation is contrary to material available on record. Appellate Court is the final Court to settle the issues of fact. Issues of fact cannot be examined by this Court. There is specific finding in order that payments by EPO No.554375, EPO No.286496 and EPO No.317950 for amount of Rs.1,52,625/-, Rs. 1,08,240/- and Rs. 51,400/- respectively, were found to be wrong and incorrect. No work has been done. On physical inspection, it was found that no water is being supplied in village through pipeline. Payment which has been made by EPO No. 527415 regarding construction of a pond was also found to be incorrect. Proper work of pond has not been done. Similarly, work was not done to satisfaction in respect of payments made by EPO No. 640523 and EPO No. 640547. Statement of various witnesses were recorded regarding the work done. It was found proved that petitioner has economically benefitted his wife and son. Further, deficiencies were found in respect of payments, which were made for supply of water in village through pipeline. In construction of pond also irregularities were found. Pond was constructed Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 28-01-2025 2:34:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3774 5 WP-14099-2019 not on government land but on private land. Further, finding has also been given that wrongfully benefits has been given to firm Balaji Traders. Construction which was found in Gram Panchayat was of poor quality. Findings regarding said facts have become final and no interference is called for in said findings.
9. Ground raised by petitioner that order was passed beyond period of 90 days, therefore, bad in law also does not hold any ground. Provision for passing order under Section 40 within 90 days is only directory in nature. Petitioner has not been removed in a casual manner. A detailed inquiry was conducted. Statements of many witnesses were recorded to bring home the guilt of petitioner and parties were permitted to do cross-examination.
10. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE vkt Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 28-01-2025 2:34:59 PM