Pejram Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2335 MP

                               1
                HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                               W.P.No.8416/2021
             (Pejram Jatav Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

Gwalior, Dated : 14.06.2021

      Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Deepak Khot, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.

      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      The present petition is being filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

             "(i)   That,      the   impugned     order   dated
             01.03.2021 Annexure P/1 may kindly be held to
             declare illegal and be quashed.
             (ii)   That, respondent no.2 may kindly be

directed to hold enquiry into the matter and fixed the liability."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

availing the opportunity has been elected Sarpanch in the Gram

Panchayat Sherpur and private respondent was assigned to work as

Panchayat Secretary in the Gram Panchayat Sherpur under the petitioner.

The private respondent no.4 taking the advantage of illiteracy and

simplicity of the petitioner played mischief with the petitioner and

misused the panchayat found against which the petitioner complained the

matter to the authorities as a result the private respondents have become

biased and committed crime with the petitioner in which trial court on

examining the evidence punished the private respondent vide judgment

dated 26.08.2017. The trial Court on 26.07.2017 while passing the

judgment clearly held that the private respondent is guilty of offences but

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.8416/2021 (Pejram Jatav Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

on the point of punishment taking the singular offence applying

provisions of Probation of Offenders Act imposed the conditions is in the

punishment order and at the same time under Clause 33 it is also directed

to pay amount of Rs.2000/- to the petitioner for the hurt caused to the

petitioner but the same amount is not paid to the petitioner till now and

therefore, the private respondent is a convicted employee and cannot be

allowed to remain in employment. The respondent no.4 at one hand

taking the advantage in punishment order has not disclosed the fact that

he has already involved in Crime No.127/2015 under Section 409, 420 of

IPC where under respondent no.4 has been placed under suspension vide

order dated 27.04.2016 and presently case is pending before the trial

Court. It is further submitted that the respondent no.4 is not acting fairly

and taking the advantage of close relations and high approaches he has

succeeded to getting issue the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 despite

the fact that the private respondent no.4 is involved in huge

misappropriation for which he has been issued show cause notice on

15.06.2016 for the recovery of Rs.5032884/- is not made absolute and is

kept pending for long and suppressing the material fact the respondent

no.3 has issued the impugned order just with the an ulterior motive.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for that the impugned order

dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) may be held to declare illegal and be

quashed and the respondent no.2 may be directed to hold enquiry into the

matter and fixed the liability.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.8416/2021 (Pejram Jatav Vs. The State of M.P. & Others)

Per contra, learned State counsel for the respondent/State has no

objection to the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner and submits that

the petitioner may file a fresh representation to the respondent No.2/the

Collector, District Bhind who may be directed to look into the matter and

decide the matter in accordance with law.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, this Courts deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a

direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the

respondent no.2/the Collector, District Bhind within a period of seven

working days and in turn if such a representation is filed, the authority is

directed to consider the representation and decide the same in accordance

with law after hearing the petitioner and communicate the outcome to the

petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the

certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

Needless to say that this Court has not commented upon the merits

of the case.

E-copy of this order be provided to the petitioner and it is made

clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for

practical purposes in respect of this order.

                                                      (Vishal Mishra)
AK/-                                                      Judge
       ANAND KUMAR
       2021.06.15
       11:04:29
       +05'30'