Authorities cannot usurp statutory powers of original disciplinary bodies by directing specific outcomes in disciplinary matters.

The petitioner, Ramesh Yadav, served as a Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) at Gram Panchayat Timarni.

In 2001, the Collector (Panchayat) proposed his removal without a hearing; this was set aside by the High Court in W.P. No. 6062/2001 with directions to follow natural justice.

On 02-09-2014, the Collector (Panchayat Cell), Khandwa, issued a fresh communication (Annexure-P/1) to the Sarpanch, directing the removal of the petitioner within 30 days under Section 86(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, citing complaints of negligence and irregularities.

Following this directive, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution (Annexure-R/3) removing the petitioner before an interlocutory stay was granted by the High Court on 29-10-2014.

The petitioner challenged both the Collector’s directive and the consequential resolution.

Whether the Collector has the authority to directly order a Gram Panchayat to remove a Panchayat Karmi, thereby usurping the discretionary powers of the Gram Panchayat as the appointing authority.

Whether a removal resolution passed by a Gram Panchayat solely in mechanical obedience to a superior authority's directive is legally sustainable.

The court applied Section 86(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, which pertains to the power of the State/Authorities to ensure the performance of duties by Panchayats.

It further relied on the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995, under which the power to initiate and conclude disciplinary action against a Panchayat Karmi is vested exclusively in the concerned Gram Panchayat as the "original authority".

The legal principle established is that a statutory body must exercise its discretion independently and cannot act under the dictation of a superior authority.

The Court observed that the Collector’s communication dated 02-09-2014 did not merely forward complaints for investigation but issued a mandatory direction for removal, threatening action under Section 86(2) if not complied with.

This directive effectively stripped the Gram Panchayat of its independent discretion under the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995.

The Court noted that the resulting resolution (Annexure-R/3) was passed in a "mechanical manner" without any independent verification of the veracity of the complaints.

By issuing direct instructions for removal, the Collector "ventured upon to exercise the powers of the original authority," which is procedurally and legally impermissible.

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned communication dated 02-09-2014 (Annexure-P/1) and the resolution (Annexure-R/3) were set aside.

However, the Court clarified that the Gram Panchayat remains at liberty to proceed against the petitioner independently on the basis of the complaints, provided it adheres to the law.