Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Kumar Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 27034 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DEVENDRA KUMAR VISHWAKARMA S/O SHRI
SANTOSH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCCUPATION: PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, POSED
AT GRAM PANCHAYAT BARHATA, JANPAD
PANCHAYAT-GOTEGAON DISTRICT NARSINGPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI V.D.S. CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR NARSINGHPUR, DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JILA PANCHAYAT NARSINGHPUR, THROUGH ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JILA PANCHAYAT
NARSINGHPUR, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JANPAD PANCHAYAT GATEGAON THROUGH ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
GATEGAON, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. JANHAVI PANDIT - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 12/9/2022
5:50:39 PM
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2022
passed by the respondent No.3 whereby, the petitioner has been placed under
suspension.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that since the recovery proceedings are
pending consideration before the respondent authorities and no panel
adjudication has been done till date, therefore, exercising powers under Section
89 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993
(for short, the Adhiniyam) no order of suspension can be passed by the
authorities. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the coordinate bench
of this Court in Writ Petition No.4528 of 2021, he has prayed for grant of
interim relief in the matter.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed the contentions and submitted that the identical issue was considered
in detail by the coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.16960 of
2021 order date 09.11.2021 (Lakhpati Yadav vs. State of M.P. and others) and
placing reliance upon the Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram
Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 (for
brevity 'Rules of 2011') and the relevant provisions of Madhya Pradesh
Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short ''the 'Rules of
1999''), it is submitted that against the suspension order the petitioner is having
a remedy of filing an appeal as provided under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. All
the grounds which have been raised by the petitioner in the present petition can
always be considered by the appellate authority. She has prayed for dismissal
of the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of the record it is seen that the petitioner is placed under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 12/9/2022
5:50:39 PM
suspension. He is having a remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 15 of the
Rules of 1999 as has been held in the case of Lakhpati Yadav (supra) wherein
the coordinate bench has held as under:-
"Thus, it is evident from a plain reading of Rule 7 of the
Rules of 2011 that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh
Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 are
applicable even in case an action is taken under Rule 7 of the
Rules of 2011. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999 deals with
suspension and provides that the appointing authority or any
authority to which it is subordinate, or disciplinary authority
in that behalf, may place a member of the Panchayat service
under suspension.
There is a provision for appeal against an order passed
under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999.
Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 provides that appeal against
the order of suspension or the order imposing penalty will be
maintainable to the authority specified as appellate
authority in the appendix appended to these rules within a
period of ninety days from the date he receives the order. It
is further provided that the appellate authority may entertain
an appeal after expiry of the said period if it is satisfied that
the appellant had sufficient cause for not submitting the
appeal in time. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1999 provides for a
mechanism for disposal of appeals.
Thus, it is evident from a plain reading of Rule 7 of the
Rules of 2011 that when disciplinary action is to be taken
even after promulgation of the Rules of 2011, in accordance
with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat
Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 then by
incorporation provisions of the Rules of 1999 have been
adopted in the Rules of 2011 and, therefore, an appeal as
provided under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 is maintainable,
therefore, the petitioner is relegated to avail said remedy of
appeal as is provided under Rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh
Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999.''
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 12/9/2022
5:50:39 PM
6. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner has a remedy to file an
appeal in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to entertain this writ petition.
7. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
irfan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 12/9/2022
5:50:39 PM
