HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : INDORE BENCH, INDORE (S. B.: Hon'ble Mr Justice S.C. Sharma) W.P No.947/2010(S) Mahesh Kumar Bhavsar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.948/2010(S) Satish Kumar Malviya Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.949/2010(S) Manohar Dhangar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.950/2010(S) Anil Rathod Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.951/2010(S) Omprakash Rathod Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.952/2010(S) Mahesh Kumar Barve Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.953/2010(S) Gyan Singh Chouhan Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.954/2010(S) Bhagirath Dhangar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.955/2010(S) Daljiya Dawar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.956/2010(S) Balusingh Solanki Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.957/2010(S) Manish Verma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.10208/2010 (S) Hareshingh Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. W.P No.1064/2010(S) Sunil Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.1065/2010(S) Rajaram Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.1066/2010(S) Chunnilal Chouhan Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.1067/2010(S) Rupram Rathore Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.1068/2010(S) Nandkishore Rathore Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P No.1069/2010(S) Gangaram Jadhav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. Shri Vivek Dalal and Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for the respondents. O R D E R (12.9.2011) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above mentioned cases were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed. The fact of W.P. No.947/10 (s) are being narrated as under : 1. The petitioner before this Court a Panchayat Karmi is aggrieved by an order dated 18.10.10 passed by Chief Executive Officer withdrawing the disbursing and drawing powers of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi at Gram Panchayat Rosmal, Janpad Pati District Barwani and was declared as a Panchayat Secretary on 31.1.2008. The petitioner has further stated that under the provisions of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and also keeping in view the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Rajgar Guarantee Yojna, 2005 certain works were carried out in the Gram Panchayat. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging delay in payment of wages to the persons, who have participated in the work. The petitioner's grievance is that without considering his reply, in which he has explained the delay the impugned order has been passed withdrawing the drawing and disbursing power of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of power conferred under Section 69 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, 1993 and the aforesaid statutory provisions of law does not empower the Chief Executive Officer to pass such an order. The second ground, which has been argued before this Court is that the impugned order suffers from violation of principal of natural justice and fair play as the petitioner was not heard in the matter and the only basis shown by the CEO is the delay in making payments by the petitioners and the impunged order has been passed without considering the reasons stated by the petitioner in the reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly relied upon the judgment delivered by the Division of this Court in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2008 (3) MPLJ 394, wherein it has been held that a Panchayat Karmi cannot be denotified until and unless proceedings are held against him in consonance with the statutory provisions as contained under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 18.1.10. 4. A reply has been filed on behalf of respondents and the stand of the respondents is that the petitioners are having a remedy of appeal before the appellate authority as provided under the M.P. Panchayt Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995. It has been further stated that a large number of complaints were received by the respondents in the matter of delayed payment of wages to the labourers under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and the Section 3(3) of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 provides for payment of wages on weekly basis. The respondents have further stated that keeping in view a large number of complaints received in the matter a fact finding enquiry took place and the show cause notice was also issued to all Panchayat Karmis. The respondents have further stated that after taking into account the reply as a proper explanation was not furnished by the petitioner, they have passed the impugned order and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. The matters are being disposed of with the consent of the parties at the motion hearing itself. 6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is serving as a Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Gram Panchayat Rosmal, Janpad Pati District Barwani. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation in respect of alleged irregularities committed by him and the same is on record as Annexure-P/4 dated 25th September, 2009. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and thereafter an order has been passed dated 18.10.10 by which drawing and disbursing power of the petitioner have been withdrawn. In the present case the order reveals that the petitioner has not been denotified at all. On the contrary, by way of stop gap arrangement only financial power has been withdrawn by the respondents. The order dated 18.1.10 is certainly not a denotification order and therefore, the judgment relied by the Learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman (supra) is distinguishable. 7. It is an admitted fact that under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 as well as M.P. Gramin Rojgar Yojna, 2005 wages are required to be paid to the villagers every week. However, the question whether wages were paid in time or whether the petitioner was at fault in the matter of delayed payment of wages is certainly a matter of a detailed enquiry, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that an enquiry should be held in the matter keeping in view the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1999. The second ground argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that section 69 (1) does not deal with the withdrawal of drawing and disbursing power. This Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the financial irregularities, the respondent Chief Executive Officer was justified in passing the impugned order and he as certainly not at all denotified the petitioner. Merely because in the impugned order a provision of law has wrongly been mentioned it is not going to vitiate the impugned order, the spirit of the order has to be looked into and, therefore, as this Court has observed that a detailed enquiry is necessary before denotifying the petitioner, the question of setting aside the order dated 18.1.10 till the enquiry is concluded or till the final order is passed does not arise. In W.P. No.10208/10 (s) the contention of the petitioner is that no show cause notice was issued by the respondents, however as the respondents have simply withdrawn the drawing and disbursing powers of the petitioner and the petitioner has not been denotified and as this Court has already passed an order for a detailed enquiry in the matter, the question of setting aside the impugned order does not arise till the enquiry is finalised. Resultantly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following orders :- (i) The respondents are directed to hold an enquiry keeping in view the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Disciplinary and 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. With the aforesaid observations all the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. ( S.C. SHARMA ) JUDGE