Gyani Ram Jatav vs The State Of M.P.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33228
1 WP-1285-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1285 of 2008
CNR No.: MPHC030048162008
GYANI RAM JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Udit Saxena - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):
"(i) That, the order annexure P/1 be quashed.
(ii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be
awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order
dated 4 July 2008, respondent No. 2, Collector, District Gwalior, directed
respondent No. 4, Gram Panchayat Baniyataur, Janpad Panchayat Bhitarwar,
to pass a resolution for terminating the petitioner's services. It is further
submitted that the impugned order was passed because Crime No. 65/2007
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:59:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33228
2 WP-1285-2008
had been registered against the petitioner. The Collector, being the appellate

authority, could not issue such a direction. The Collector could only direct an
inquiry and could not direct the Gram Panchayat to terminate the petitioner's
services within one month. Learned counsel further submits that the same
issue has already been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Nilesh Dubey v. State of M.P. and Others, 2007 (3) MPLJ 349 . It is also
submitted that the petitioner cannot be removed from service merely because
an FIR has been registered against him. Such action may be considered in
accordance with law if the petitioner is convicted by the competent court. It
is further submitted that this Court stayed the impugned order vide order
dated 19 March 2008. Learned counsel also submits that a similar petition,
W.P. No. 3108/2007, filed by Babulal Prajapati, has already been allowed by
this Court vide order dated 5 August 2026.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the
impugned order and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for
petitioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has already decided the same
issue vide order dated 5th August, 2026 passed in W.P. No. 3108/2007. The
relevant part of the order is quoted below for ready reference and
convenience:
"5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that by the impugned
order dated 04.07.2007, the Collector, District Sheopur, directed
the Gram Panchayat, Zaida, to pass a resolution for terminating
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:59:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33228
3 WP-1285-2008
the services of the petitioner after issuing a 30 days' show-cause
notice. Admittedly, the Collector is the appellate/revisional
authority under the relevant statutory scheme. Such a direction,
issued by the appellate/revisional authority itself, amounts to
usurping the powers vested in the Gram Panchayat under the
recruitment policy governing the services of Panchayat Karmi and
virtually deprives the petitioner of his statutory right of
appeal/revision. It is further evident that the order dated
01.12.2006, whereby the powers of the petitioner were withdrawn
under Section 69(1) of the Panchayat Act, was passed on the basis
of reports submitted by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, which were
prepared behind the back of the petitioner, without affording him
an opportunity of hearing.

7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned orders dated 01.12.2006 and 04.07.2007 cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law and are, accordingly, hereby
quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed
against the petitioner afresh, strictly in accordance with law, after
following the prescribed procedure and the principles of natural
justice, if so advised.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands
disposed of.

6. The main issue for consideration is whether the Collector could
direct the Gram Panchayat to pass a resolution for terminating the services of
petitioner merely because a criminal case had been registered against him.
7. From the record, it appears that the impugned order dated 4 July
2008 was passed on the basis of registration of Crime No. 65/2007 against
the petitioner. However, the mere registration of a criminal case does not, by
itself, justify termination of the petitioner's services. The competent authority
is required to act in accordance with the applicable rules and law. The
Collector could not direct the Gram Panchayat to terminate the services of
petitioner within a period of one month without following the procedure
prescribed by law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:59:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33228
4 WP-1285-2008
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is

allowed and disposed of with following directions:
(i) The impugned order dated 4 July 2008 (Annexure P/1) is
hereby quashed.
(ii) However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take
appropriate action in accordance with law, if the petitioner has been
convicted in Crime No. 65/2007.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:59:43 PM