Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munesh Kumar Rawat (Kol) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3482
1 WP-14830-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 23 rd OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14830 of 2017
MUNESH KUMAR RAWAT (KOL)
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gopal Singh Baghel - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Parashar - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been challenging the order of termination order dated
17.06.2005 passed by the respondent No.3 and subsequent order dated 10.01.2017
passed by the respondent No.2 in appeal whereby the services of the petitioner has
been terminated.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Patwari
vide order dated 10.03.1989. His joining was record from 14.03.1989 in Tahsil
Headquarter. Thereafter, in view of the administrative exigency the respondent
No.3 vide its order dated 12.12.2003 has directed the posting of the petitioner in
Patwari Halka Salaiya RI Mauganj, where he has joined the post. Thereafter,
without issuing any notice the order of termination has been issued. Being
aggrieved, he filed a writ petition being W.P. No.19298/2016 which was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 11.07.2016. Pursuant to the order of this Court he
filed an appeal on 05.08.2016 before the Collector but the same was turned down.
Hence, this petition.
3. The sole ground of challenging the termination order is that the set order is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3482
2 WP-14830-2017
being passed by an incompetent authority. It is argued that the Collector is a
competition authority in terms of the relevant provisions under the MPLRC to
appoint the petitioner on post of Patwari and as the appointing authority is the
Collector, he is the competent authority to take any disciplinary action against the
petitioner who is working on the post of Patwari.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by
the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.26884/2024 (Smt. Anita
Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) dated 23.09.2024 in support of his
argument.
5. Counsel appearing for the State on notice have filed the reply to the writ
petition and has filed a document Annexure R/1 pointing out the delegation of
powers being done as Sub-Divisional Officer being a competent authority to take a
disciplinary action against the Patwari. The relevant extract of Annexure R/1 is as
follows:-
"इ. समझे गए पटवार धारा 106 क उपधारा (2 ) दे खये।
ई. कले टर क श याँ अ य अिधका रय को द इस धारा क उपधारा
(2) ारा कले टर को पटवा रय क िनयु करने का अिधकार दया गया है ।
म. . राजप दनांक 9 अ टू बर 1959 म कािशत अिधसूचना .11429-सी-
आर-635-छह-ना-1. दनांक 1 अ टू बर 1959 ारा रा य सरकार ने सम त
उपखंड अिधका रय को यह श दान कर द है । म. . राजप दनांक 2
अग त 1963 म कािशत अिधसूचना . 1149-सात-63, दनांक 30 अ ैल
1963 ारा रा य सरकार ने धारा 104 के अधीन कले टर क श याँ सम त
अिधकार अिभलेख अिधका रय को दान कर द ह। धारा 104 के अधीन
श याँ भू-अिभलेख अिधका रय को भी द गई ह। धारा 24 के अंतगत ट पणी
आ (3) दे ख।
उ. पटवार क िनयु , पद युित तथा िनलंबन उपधारा (2) के संशोधन के
पहले धारा 258 के अधीन बनाए गए िनयम के अधीन रहते हुए कले टर
पटवार क िनयु कर सकता था। इन श द के हटा दे ने के प ात ् िनयु
िनयम के अधीन नह ं होती वरन ् शासिनक नीित के अनुसार क जा सकती है ।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3482
3 WP-14830-2017
म. . साधारण वा य अिधिनयम 1957 क धारा 16 मे उ लेख है क जब तक
िभ न अिभ ाय कट न हो, जब तक ािधकार , जसे िनयु करने का
अिधकार है उसे िनलं बत करने या पद युत करने का अिधकार भी होगा।
सं हता क धारा 104 क उपधारा (2) म ऐसी कोई बात नह ं है जससे क कोई
िभ न अिभ ाय कट होता हो, अतएव पटवार को िनयु करने क श म
िनलं बत या पद युत करने क श स मिलत मानी जाएगी। इस कार
उपखंड अिधकार ' अथवा भू-अिभलेख अिधकार पटवार क िनयु , उसका
िनलंबन अथवा उसक पद युित कर सकता है । कले टर पटवार को पद युत
कर सकता है य क वह िनयु ािधकार है । यायो जत श य के अधीन
उपखंड अिधकार को पटवार क िनयु करने तथा हटाने क श ा है ।
(धारा 22 क ट पणी आ दे ख)।'
पटवार क िनयु कले टर ारा क जाती है , रा य सरकार ारा नह ं;
अतः दं ड या सं हता क धारा 197 के अधीन उसके अिभयोजन के िलए
मंजूर आव यक नह ं।
पटवार सरकार सेवक है । उसक सेवा कानूनी विनयम ारा विनयिमत
ह। अवैध प से सेवा समाि पर पुनः थापना क दशा म वह पछली संपूण
मजदरू का हकदार है ; काम नह ं तो वेतन नह ं का िनयम उस पर लागू नह ं है ।
आरोप सा बत कए बना सेवा समाि का आदे श कठोर दं ड है । चेतावनी
के साथ सेवा समाि आदे श अपा त कया गया।"
6. On the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs it is clear that there is a
delegation of powers to the effect that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) are
competent authority to take disciplinary action against the Patwari. The aforesaid
aspect could not be disputed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing
any other documents or any judgment passed by this Court. Document Annexure
P/11-judgment passed by the coordinate Bench has not taken note off the relevant
provisions under the MPLRC by excercing delegation of powers, the powers have
been conferred to the Sub-Divisional Officers to take disciplinary action against
the Patwari.
7. Under these circumstances, no benefit of the said judgment can be extended
to the petitioner. As the document Annexure R/1 clearly reflects the powers to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3482
4 WP-14830-2017
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to take disciplinary action against the Patwari.
8. Therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Petition is accordingly
dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
