MP HC Upholds Panchayat Karmi’s Removal After He Admitted Money Was Withdrawn After Two Workers’ Deaths

In brief

The question

Whether the Collector’s order should be set aside for failure to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the Division Bench’s direction.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner had not established a denial of the opportunity of hearing or a violation of natural justice.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the Collector’s order in force.

01Facts

The Collector, Shahdol, by order dated 7 May 2012, removed the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi under Section 86(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, and de-notified him as Secretary under Section 69(1).

¶ 1

After an earlier order was challenged, the Division Bench directed the Collector to afford the petitioner a hearing and conduct the proceedings afresh, leaving open the possibility of modifying or cancelling the earlier orders.

¶ 2

The petitioner argued that, despite filing a detailed reply, the Collector had not considered his defence or provided an effective hearing; the State maintained that he had been heard and that his grounds had been considered.

¶ 3–4

The petitioner then challenged the Collector’s 2012 order in this writ petition.

02Issues

i.Whether the Collector’s order should be set aside for failure to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the Division Bench’s direction.

¶ 2–3, 8

ii.Whether the petitioner’s reply and explanations were considered before the Collector passed the order.

¶ 3–4, 6–8

03Law Applied

Section 86(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, provides the power invoked to remove a Panchayat Karmi, while Section 69(1) provides the power invoked to de-notify a Secretary.

¶ 1

The Division Bench’s direction required the Collector to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and conduct the proceedings afresh, without expressing a view on the merits.

¶ 2

The Court considered whether that opportunity and the requirements of natural justice had been satisfied.

¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 2

M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 Section 86Section 69

04Reasoning

The Court examined the petitioner’s reply and found that it acknowledged, among other matters, withdrawals and payments relating to workers who had died, repeated failures to maintain cash books, and the drilling of a handpump in front of the petitioner’s house.

¶ 6–7

It concluded that the Collector had considered these matters and made findings against the petitioner; it therefore rejected the claim that the petitioner had been denied a hearing or that natural justice had been violated.

¶ 8