Amar Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6651 MP

                                                     W.P. No.28012/2021

                                  1



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                     ON THE 4th OF MAY, 2022
              WRIT PETITION No. 28012 of 2021
       Between:-
       AMAR SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI HALKE
       SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION: GRAM ROJGAR SAHAYAK
       (SECRETARY)   GRAM    PANCHAYAT
       BILHARI,    JANPAD    PANCHAYAT
       LOVEKUSHNAGAR DISTT. CHHATARPUR
       (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                     .....PETITIONER
       (SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
       PETITIONER )
       AND
1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT
       AND    RURAL   DEV.  DEPARTMENT
       VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
       PRADESH)



2.     UPPER COLLECTOR (DEVELOPMENT)
       AVAM CEO ZILA PANCHAYAT DISTT.
       CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)



3.     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
       PANCHAYAT LOVEKUSHNAGAR DISTT.
       CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
       (SMT. SHRADDHA TIWARI, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR
       THE RESPONDENTS/STATE )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed

the following:

                              ORDER

W.P. No.28012/2021

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order

dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby

the charge of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bilhari has been withdrawn

from the petitioner.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the

petitioner is working as Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat

Bilhari. Earlier in the year 2017, the petitioner had been given the charge

of Secretary of Gram Panchayat Bilhari vide order dated 01.07.2017.

Thereafter, one R.D. Rajput was made Secretary but in view of

complaints against him, he was removed and again vide order dated

23.11.2020, the petitioner was given charge of Secretary of Gram

Panchayat Bilhari. Again, vide order dated 26.10.2021, the charge of

Secretary was given to one Ram Saran Ahirwar, who was already having

charge of another Gram Panchayat but because he was unable to do

work of both the Gram Panchayats, respondent No.3 sent a proposal on

18.11.2021 to respondent No.2 to once again give the charge of

Secretary to the petitioner. In view of the proposal sent by respondent

No.3, respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 25.11.2021 vide which

the charge of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bilhari was given to the

petitioner. But all of a sudden within five days, respondent No.3 has

cancelled the order dated 25.11.2021 and the additional charge of

Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bilhari has been withdrawn. Hence, this

petition.

W.P. No.28012/2021

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order

is manifestly illegal, arbitrary and erroneous and therefore, deserves to

be quashed. The impugned order has been passed owing to complaints

against the petitioner as a penalty. It is further submitted that the order

impugned violates the instructions of the respondent No.1 which directs

for immediate stoppage of giving charge of two Gram Panchayats to one

Secretary and directs that only one Secretary be made for one Gram

Panchayat. It is further contended that no opportunity of hearing was

granted to the petitioner and the impugned order is per se illegal. In this

regard, the petitioner has submitted a representation dt.14.12.2021

(Annexure P/7), which is still pending consideration. Therefore, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State submitted that the petitioner has no vested right over

the additional charge of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bilhari, which is of

temporary nature, as is evident from the order dated 25.11.2021

(Annexure P/6). There is no violation of any legal or fundamental right

of the petitioner. The service condition of the petitioner is also not

changed by withdrawing the additional charge. It is further contended

that the petitioner has no right to ask for or stick to the additional charge.

The impugned order does not cause any financial loss or prejudice of

any kind to the petitioner. If the petitioner is unable to discharge his

duties efficiently, the authorities have powers to replace him with

another person, who can manage the affairs properly. In support of his

contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the W.P. No.28012/2021

case State of Haryana Vs. S.M. Sharma & Ors. as reported in 1993

SCC supl. (3) 252.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The impugned order is only an order withdrawing the additional

charge. Substantive post of the petitioner is Gram Rojgar Sahayak. The

petitioner was neither appointed/promoted to the post of Secretary nor he

was reverted from the said post. He was only holding the additional

charge, which has been withdrawn.

7. This Court is of the considered view that the respondents are

within the powers to issue the impugned order dated 30.11.2021

(Annexure P/1) withdrawing the additional charge from the petitioner.

8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to exercise the

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the instant petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.05.04 17:18:11 +05'30'