--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 318 / 2010 SURESHCHANDRA S/O RAMCHANDRA Vs. THE STATE OF MP & 4 OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 11/11/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 3/3/08 denotifying the petitioner and is also aggrieved by order dt. 21/12/2009 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been turned down. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents while issuing the order of denotification have not taken into account the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of MP and others reported in [ 2008 (3) MPLJ 394 ]. He has vehemently argued before this Court that without following the procedure prescribed under the M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) --- 2 --- Rules, 1999, the order of denotification could not have been passed. A reply has been filed in the matter and the respondents have admitted that they have not followed the prescribed procedure as provided under the M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The respondents have stated that the petitioner was not working properly as a Panchayat Karmi and the village people were annoyed as they were not getting their ration card and other facilities on the basis of ration card and therefore they have rightly removed the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. Heard the learned counsel counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was denotified by an order dt. 3/3/08 and the same reflects that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5/7/07. Paragraphs 2 of the order reveals that no reply --- 3 --- was filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice and therefore the competent authority has denotified the petitioner by order dt. 3/3/08. However, this fact is seriously disputed by the petitioner and the petitioner has stated before this Court that reply was filed in the matter on 7/9/2008. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of MP and others reported in [ 2008 (3) MPLJ 394 ] and the Division Bench in the aforesaid case in paragraphs 6 to 9 has held as under : “6. Part III of the Rules,1999 provides for penalties. Rule 5 categorised the minor penalties and the major penalties which can be imposed on a member of the Panchayat Service. Under Clause (b) major plenalties which can be imposed on a member of a Panchayat Service have been enumerated and reduction in rank and removal from service have been categorised as major penalties. When a Secretary of a Gram Panchayat is either reverted to the rank of Panchayat Karmi or removed from the post of Secretary, he suffers a major plenalty mentioned under Clause (b) of Rule 5 of the Rules,1999. 7. Rule 7 of the Rules,1999 provides that no order imposing on a member of the Panchayat Service any of the major penalties shall be passed except after a formal inquiry is held as far as may be in the manner provided therein. Hence, unless the procedure laid down in the Rule 7 of the Rules,1999 is followed, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat cannot be removed or reverted from the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the stand taken by the appellant that he could not have been removed from the post of --- 4 --- Secretary, Gram Panchayat or could not have been reverted to a lower post of Panchayat Karmi without an inquiry appears to be correct”. 8. Nonetheless, Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999 provides that the Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or Disciplinary Authority may place a member of Panchayat Service under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude is under investigation, inquiry or trial . In the present case , since an inquiry into the charges of misconduct against the appellant has been ordered by the Collector, Shahdol, a disciplinary case is pending against him. That apart a criminal case for violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act is also pending against the appellant. Hence, the Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority or any authority to which the Appointing Authority isk subordinate have the power to place the appellant under suspension. But instead of placing the appellant under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and pending the criminal trial, the Collector, Shahdol has reverted the appellant to the rank of Panchayat Karmi or has removed him from the post of Panchayat Secretary contrary to the provisions of the Rules,1999 as discussed above. 9. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 30.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, quash the order dated 29.9.07 of the Collector Shahdol as well as the order dated 16.7.07 of the Commissioner, Rewa Division and leave it open for the Collector to pass an order of suspension of the appellant in accordance with the Rules, 1999. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court and as the respondents have not followed the prescribed procedure, as provided under the M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) --- 5 --- Rules, 1999, the impugned order dt. 3/3/08 passed by the respondents denotifying the petitioner is accordingly quashed. The subsequent order passed in appeal dt. 21/12/2009 is also quashed. However, a liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter in case need so arises in future. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR