Shiv Charan Bhurtiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87459
1 WP-9889-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9889 of 2012
CNR No.: MPHC010275822012
SHIV CHARAN BHURTIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Karnik
Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Praveen Namdeo - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Hitendra Kumar Golhani - Advocate for caveator.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging order dated 07.05.2012 passed by Collector, District
Shahdol. By said order, Collector has exercised its power under Section
86(2) of M.P. Panchayat Raj avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 for
removal of petitioner as Panchayat Karmi and further exercised its power
under Section 69(1) to de-notify petitioner as Secretary.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that
number of allegations were made against petitioner and thereafter, impugned
orders were passed by Collector, appellate authority and State Government.
Petitioner has challenged the said orders by filing Writ Petition No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Signing time: 2026-10-31
15:40:10

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87459
2 WP-9889-2012
596/2009 before High Court. High Court was not satisfied with the grounds

raised in writ petition and has dismissed writ petition vide order dated
15.01.2010. Said order was subjected to challenge before Division Bench in
Writ Appeal No. 138/2010. Writ appellate Court on 18.07.2011 disposed of
said writ appeal and passed following orders :
"In the facts and circumstances of the case and as agreed to by learned
counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ
appeal with a direction to the Collector to afford an opportunity of
hearing to the appellant and thereafter to submit enquiry report afresh to
the Deputy Director. The orders dated 29.12.2008 passed by the
Collector shall be subject to the proceeding which shall be initiated by
the Collector afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
appellant. The Collector, if it is so found, would be at liberty to modify
or cancel the orders dated 29.12.2008. It is made clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner further submitted
that petitioner had filed a detailed representation/reply before Collector
raising all his grievances, but said defence was not taken into consideration
and without considering the same, Collector has again passed the impugned
order. It is submitted that writ appellate Court has given specific direction to
give an opportunity of hearing to petitioner and thereafter, pass fresh orders.
Since petitioner was again denied opportunity of hearing and his defence was
not taken into consideration, therefore, order passed by Collector is bad in
law and same be set aside.
4. Counsel appearing for respondents supported the order passed by
Collector and submitted that adequate opportunity of hearing was provided
to petitioner. Grounds raised by petitioner in its reply was quoted verbatim
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Signing time: 2026-10-31
15:40:10

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87459
3 WP-9889-2012
by Collector in its order and thereafter, same was considered and case was

dismissed. Direction issued by writ appellate Court was complied with and
opportunity of hearing was also provided to petitioner. In view of same, no
case is made out for interference. Writ petition filed by petitioner be
dismissed.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties.
6. On going through the reply, which has been filed by petitioner, it is
found that petitioner has admitted that due to negligence, petitioner has not
prepared Cash Book for an amount of Rs. 37,200/-. It is further admitted in
reply by petitioner that Shyamlal and Daddi Kol had died. Since money was
being received from Janpad Panchayat, therefore, same was withdrawn and
payment was made (since both the workers namely Shyamlal and Daddi Kol
has died about two years back and withdrawal was being made for period of
two years and to whom, payment was made is not explained by petitioner).
Petitioner is a Panchayat Karmi and resident of the same village, therefore,
Panchayat Karmi and Secretary are aware who has died and in which house,
birth has taken place). It cannot be said that petitioner was not having
knowledge that Shyamlal and Daddi Kol had died. Reply filed by petitioner
amounts to his admission that amount has been withdrawn after death of said
workers and payment has also been misused.
7. Further, in reply, it has been stated that Butibai Gond and Ramwati
Gond were paid Rs. 500-500 each. There was no demand of any bribe from
said persons. It is further mentioned that Sarpanch has forcefully taken his
signature on Cash Book on 03.04.1997. He has not signed on blank pages. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Signing time: 2026-10-31
15:40:10

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87459
4 WP-9889-2012
is also admitted in reply that handpump was drilled in front of his house

(there is allegation that petitioner has misused the policy by drilling
handpump in front of his house). It is also mentioned in reply that real
brother of petitioner was Up-Sarpanch. It is also admitted by him in reply
that Rojgar Guarantee Job Card and Muster Roll were not produced in
meeting of Gram Sabha since record were not complete. Further, petitioner
has stated that due to forgetfulness, he has not prepared Cash Book on
07.05.2005, 22.06.2005 and 14.11.2005 for withdrawal of amount of Rs.
4,19,669/-. Other explanations are also given by petitioner.
8. From the explanation of petitioner itself, it is clear that petitioner
himself has admitted many of the facts like withdrawal of money after death
of persons, not maintaining of Cash Book due to forgetfulness repeatedly,
drilling of handpump in front of his house etc. Collector has considered all
the aforesaid facts and finding has been given by him in para 9 of order
against petitioner. Considering the same, it is not found that petitioner was
not given opportunity of hearing and his rights of natural justice has been
violated.
9. Writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
vkt

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Signing time: 2026-10-31
15:40:10