Sandeep Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3771 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                      ON THE 3 rd OF MARCH, 2023
                   WRIT PETITION No. 20159 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
SANDEEP SHARMA S/O SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GRAM   ROJGAR    SAHAYAK GRAM  PANCHAYA
MUSTARA KUMHARIA RAI TEHSIL BHANDER
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRATIP VISORIYA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
      DISTRICT BHOAPL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    COLLECTOR DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PANCHAYAT,
      DATIA DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT
      BHANDER, DATIA DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KAUSHLENDRA SING - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

Taking into account the nature of order which this court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No.4.

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

petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.03.2016 by which the services of the petitioner from the post of Village Employment Assistant have been terminated by the Chief Executive Officer.

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this court on clause 15.2 read with clarification letter dated 21.01.2021 of the scheme governing the appointment of Village Employment Assistant and submitted that the competent authority under the scheme to terminate the services of petitioner is Collector. However, the impugned order is passed by Chief Executive Officer with the approval of Collector. The aforesaid aspect could not be disputed by the learned panel

lawyer for the State.

It is well settled law that when a power is conferred upon an authority, that authority alone has to exercise that power as has been held in Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC

In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by Supreme Court, it is evident that the impugned order has not been passed by the competent authority and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is accordingly quashed. Needless to State that Collector Gwalior would be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner, if so advised. The coordinate Bench of this Court while referring to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 has taken a similar view.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

PAWAN Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02d9d593f,

KUMAR pseudonym=3190AA6E1809E2BA43FFBEC416CA08028399E44A, serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA65E26164BEEED89153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2023.03.04 15:31:51 +05'30'

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu PAWAN Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cd d90b4a49f265f02d9d593f,

KUMAR pseudonym=3190AA6E1809E2BA43FFBEC416CA08028399 E44A, serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA6 5E26164BEEED89153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2023.03.04 15:31:39 +05'30'