Writ Appeal No.546/2011 03.10.2011 Shri Manohar Dalal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S. Ujjainia, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.3 to 5. In view of the detailed order passed by us today in Writ Appeal No.541 of 2011 [Harisingh Peplode Vs. State of M.P. and others], this writ appeal is also disposed of. The observations made in the main order passed in W.A. No.541 of 2011 shall equally apply to this appeal also. A copy of the main order be kept in the file of this writ appeal and be treated as a part of it. Cc within three days. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge rcp 2 Writ Appeal No.541/2011 03.10.2011 Shri Manohar Dalal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S. Ujjainia, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.3 to 5. With consent heard and finally disposed of. This writ appeal is directed under Section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.947/2010 (s). This order shall govern disposal of Writ Appeal No.542/11, Writ Appeal No.544/11, Writ Appeal No.545/11, Writ Appeal No.546/11, Writ Appeal No.547/11 and Writ Appeal No.548/11, as they arise out of common order dated 12.09.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court. For the sake of convenience facts are taken from W.A.No.541/2011. The appellant/petitioner working on the post of Panchayat Karmi, was also discharging the duties of Panchayat Secretary conferred upon him under Section 69 (1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short Adhiniyam, 1993). On the basis of some 3 allegations, an enquiry behind the back of the petitioner was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pati. On the basis of the said enquiry report a show cause notice was issued to him on 25.09.2009. The writ petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said show cause notice denying the allegations levelled against him. However, without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner in the said reply, an order dated 18.01.2010 was issued by the Chief Executive Officer on the basis of the approval given by the Collector, Barwani holding the petitioner to be guilty of delayed payment of wages to the beneficiaries of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, and as a consequence the financial powers of drawing and disbursing were withdrawn from the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition before this Court. On 29.01.2010 the Single Bench of this Court stayed the said order dated 18.01.2010 passed by the Chief Executive Officer by which the petitioner was held guilty and his drawing and disbursing powers were withdrawn. Thereafter, the writ petition was heard finally and the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 12.09.2011 by giving following directions :- “(i) The respondents are directed to hold an enquiry keeping in view the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Disciplinary and 4 Appeal) Rules, 1999 read with M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. (ii) The aforesaid enquiry and the consequential action be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. (iii) The petitioners shall be entitled to continue as Panchayat Secretary, however they will not exercise their drawing and disbursing power till the enquiry is finalised.” Aggrieved by this order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has filed this intra- Court appeal. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the basis of report of an ex-parte preliminary enquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner of which reply was also submitted by him. However, without considering the reply an order in the nature of final order was passed on 18.01.2010 holding the petitioner to be guilty and ordering for withdrawal from him the powers of drawing and disbursing. According to him, such an order could not have been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., 2008 (3) MPLJ 394. 5 According to him, when reply to the said show cause notice was already filed, it was necessary for the Chief Executive Officer or the Collector to have considered the same and then to have taken appropriate decision on it inconformity with the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short Rules of 1999) and M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. According to him, without holding the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Rules of 1999 the order holding the petitioner to be guilty could not have been passed. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the Chief Executive Officer has only withdrawn the drawing and disbursing powers of the petitioner and no order of de-notifying the petitioner Panchayat Karmi as a Panchayat Secretary has been passed and, therefore, no case for interference is made out. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our considered view the impugned order dated 18.01.2010 in the nature of final order holding the petitioner to be guilty could not have been passed. As we on a close scrutiny of the order dated 18.01.2010 find that the same is final in nature as there is no mention that the same is issued pending enquiry 6 contemplated against the petitioner/appellant. In the circumstances, such an order which is final in nature and which has been passed ignoring the reply to the show cause notice is violative of principles of natural justice and is also contrary to the provisions contained in Rules of 1999. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge, however, with liberty to the respondents, if so advised to pass fresh order, keeping in view the provisions contained in Rules of 1999 and Adhiniyam, 1993. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Cc within three days. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge rcp