Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Kumar Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 June, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
WRIT PETITION No. 3720 OF 2021
BETWEEN:-
MAHESH KUMAR UIKEY, S/O SHRI RAM
CHARAN UIKEY, TERMINATED GRAM
PANCHAYAT SECRETARY R/O VILLAGE
BANDHAN RAIYYAT, P.O. MOIYA TEH.
BICHHUA, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S. MUKHARJEE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PANCHAYAT AND GRAMIN VIKAS
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
2 COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANAPAD
PANCHAYAT, CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5 SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE),
CHORAI, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6 ACCOUNT OFFICER
2
JILA PANCHAYAT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7 OFFICER INCHARGE
GRAM PANCHAYAT KHAMARIYAMAAL,
BICHHUA, CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DILIP PARIHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER RESERVED ON : 03.02.2023
ORDER PASSED ON : 13.06.2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for order coming
on for pronouncement this day, this Court passed the following order:-
ORDER
With consent heard finally.
The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following relief:
(i) That, the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to
pass an direction to respondent No.2 to reinstate
the petitioner and set aside the order dated
03.07.2019 passed by respondent No.4.
(ii) That, the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to
pass any other appropriate order/writ which
deems fit and proper in the fact and
circumstances of the case.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as Gram Panchayat Secretary and was allotted the job
relating to Samagra Swachhata Abhiyan, Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan,
Panch Parmeshwar and Serv Siksha Abhiyan by CEO, Bichhua
Chhindwara. It is alleged that petitioner withdrew the money without
getting the job done hence an enquiry was conducted and after the
enquiry being conducted, CEO has suspended the petitioner alongwith
Sarpanch of the village.
3. As per the petitioner, in many cases other Secretaries of Village
were suspended likewise petitioner, but later on their services were
reinstated by concerned CEO; however, in the case of petitioner FIR
was lodged for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 of
IPC and he was arrested. Later on he was convicted for offence under
Section 409 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for two years 4 months
and during the trial itself, petitioner has undergone whole sentence.
Due to jail sentence awarded to the petitioner, the CEO has terminated
the service of the petitioner and the appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, vide
Criminal Appeal No. 2827/2016 is still pending. In the meantime, the
appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging his termination order
passed by CEO, stood dismissed vide order dated 14/2/2020.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in
similar matters where other Secretaries like petitioner were charge-
sheeted and suspended for the same cause of action, stood reinstated
later on, therefore, the action of the authorities in the case of petitioner
amounts to discrimination. Further, before passing the order of
termination, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner
and therefore, impugned order suffers from grave irregularity and
arbitrariness.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued in
support of impugned order while submitting that petitioner was
provided adequate opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned
award and once the petitioner has been convicted and suffered jail
sentence, then the petition is not maintainable at the threshold as
petitioner was convicted after trial and appreciation of evidence
available against him.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
7. This is the case where petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
30.07.2019 passed by CEO Zila Panchayat, Chindwada, whereby
petitioner has been removed from his service because of conviction
recorded by the Trial Court against the petitioner for offence under
Section 409 of IPC and awarded two years four mounts of simple
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. The said conviction involves
moral turpitude. Petitioner who was working as Panchayat Secretary
(suspended) suffered conviction and jail sentence involving allegations
of moral turpitude.
8. As per Rule 7 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Services (Gram
Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
2011 is categorical in this regard. The same is reproduced as under:-
"7. Discipline and Control.- Disciplinary action
against Gram Panchayat Secretary shall be
taken under the following circumstances:-
(1) The Gram Panchayat Secretary shall be
deemed to have been automatically terminated
from services if he has been convicted by the
Court for any offence of moral turpitude.
(2) XXX
(3) XXX
(4) XXX
(5) XXX
Perusal of the same indicates that CEO has passed the order in
accordance with the statute and no arbitrariness or illegality has been
caused.
9. Divisional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, vide order dated
07.04.2020 passed the order in appeal preferred by the petitioner. After
considering the submissions, Authority passed the impugned order
relying upon Rule 7(1) of Rule 2011. The said rule contemplates
automatic removal from the service, if Panchayat Secretary is
convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. Here in the present
case, allegation against the petitioner were serious in nature. Petitioner
and Sarpanch were alleged with the siphoning of public money to the
tune of Rs. 22,81,721/-. The quantum of amount and the allegations
are serious is nature. Therefore, no leniency can be shown against such
erring officers who convicted by the trial court in a full-fledged trial in
which accused always had an opportunity to plead his part of
innocence.
10. In the case of Laxmi Narayan Hayaran Vs. State of M.P.,
2004 (4) MPLJ 555 (FB), it has been held that once the termination is
on account of conviction in a criminal case, no opportunity of hearing
or inquiry is required to be conducted, as termination is permissible in
view of the provisions contained in the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Therefore, on this
count also, case of the petitioner looses ground.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to rely upon the cases of
some other employees but no negative parity can be pressed into
service and on fact also, it appears that cases of those employees move
in different factual realm. Those were the cases of suspension of
employees and their revocation. Here, the case is of conviction and
action taken subsequent to it. Therefore, cumulatively, no case for
interference is made out. Petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
Ashish* (Anand Pathak)
Judge
ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH CHAURASIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
CHAUR
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7b5195154c3d4de
08c6bb9303e52e2e7e728d9bac85bd3,
pseudonym=CA2EA6EDDF504F8F9C2790FA9A0F
D201D0242B64,
serialNumber=A926F3CBF979ECA6A4C477577EE
ASIA
DBA3AB4F94593A930B98DAE1B0AD16F90B5FD,
cn=ASHISH CHAURASIA
Date: 2023.06.14 19:56:06 -07'00'
