Long-Standing Service Cannot Be Severed Solely on Internal Enquiry Reports Ignoring Valid Official Records

The appellant was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi by Gram Panchayat Muhali via a resolution dated 25.06.2006.

Subsequently, he was granted the charge of Panchayat Secretary under Section 69(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 on 13.11.2006.

Following a complaint alleging the appointment resolution was forged, an enquiry by the S.D.O. (Revenue) concluded that the resolution was not in the original proceedings register.

Consequently, the Collector withdrew the appellant's secretarial powers, and the Additional Commissioner directed his removal from the post.

The appellant challenged these orders via a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 26.03.2026.

The appellant then preferred this Writ Appeal, having served for nearly 20 years under interim judicial protection.

1. Whether an enquiry report can be treated as conclusive proof to nullify a statutory appointment without independent evaluation of the official record by the competent authorities.

2. Whether the Additional Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering the removal of the appellant from a substantive post during a proceeding primarily concerning the withdrawal of secretarial powers.

3. Whether 20 years of uninterrupted service and subsequent developments ought to be considered as equitable factors under Article 226/227.

Section 69(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, regarding the appointment/conferment of powers of a Panchayat Secretary.

Precedent of Jogendrasinhji Vijay Singhji v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 9 SCC 1, which establishes that constitutional courts must advance substantial justice by considering subsequent developments.

Principle from Ashok K. Jha v. Garden Silk Mills Ltd., (2009) 10 SCC 584, holding that procedural or technical irregularities should not defeat substantive justice.

The High Court found that the Collector, Commissioner, and Single Judge erred by treating the S.D.O.'s enquiry report as absolute proof without examining the actual official records.

The Court observed that the resolution dated 25.06.2006 was physically present in the original file, signed by the Sarpanch and members, and corroborated by the appellant's long-standing appointment order and joining report.

The Court reasoned that an enquiry report is merely an "opinion" and cannot nullify official acts that were recognized and acted upon by various authorities for decades.

The court emphasized that the appellant’s 20 years of unblemished service constituted a significant "subsequent development" that mandated the exercise of equitable jurisdiction to prevent manifest injustice.

The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Single Judge dated 26.03.2026 was set aside; the Court quashed the orders of the Collector and Additional Commissioner, restoring the appellant’s appointment as Panchayat Karmi with continuity of service.