'Opportunity To Be Heard Was Not Granted': Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Order Terminating Panchayatkarmi

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Thursday (June 19), set aside a termination order of a Panchayatkarmi, noting that the removal/ termination order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The bench noted that the petitioner was neither granted any opportunity to file written statements nor was granted an opportunity to be heard. 

The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held, "The petitioner was not given any opportunity to file written statement of defence nor was given a chance to be personally heard (though show cause notices were issued, which allegedly were not replied by the petitioner, which could not imply that the petitioner was given a chance to be heard), thus, the order of removal of petitioner from the post of Panchayatkarmi was in contravention of said Rules, therefore, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eyes of law". 

The petitioner was appointed as Panchayatkarmi in 1995 and was later granted secretarial powers under Section 69(1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. However, due to complaints, he was demoted in 2005. Although this de-notification was initially upheld, the High Court set it aside in 2009. Meanwhile, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on February 14, 2006, removing the petitioner from the post without evaluating merit and appointed respondent No.7.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Additional Commissioner, who upheld the earlier order of the Collector. Thus, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to overturn the termination order. 

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sourav Singh Tomar, contended that his termination violated the M.P. Panchayat (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, particularly Rule 7, which required a formal inquiry. It was argued that no charge sheet was issued, no statement of allegations was provided, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit a written defence or be heard in person.

However, the respondents claimed that two show cause notices were issued, but the petitioner maintained he never received them, rendering the dismissal unlawful and procedurally defective.

The State, represented by Government Advocate G.K. Agarwal, submitted that due process was followed. It was further argued that the petitioner's history of misconduct and misappropriation justified his removal. Respondent No.7, represented by Advocate Sanjay Kumar Mishra, argued that his appointment was lawful and he was serving continuously, even absorbed into the government cadre. 

Upon reviewing the matter, the court held that the petitioner fell within the scope of "Panchayat Service" as defined under Rule 2(j) of the 1999 Rules. As such, Rule 5(d) and Rule 7 required a formal inquiry for imposing major penalties like dismissal. The bench observed that none of the mandatory procedures under Rule 7 were followed—no formal charges were framed, no statement of allegations was supplied, and no opportunity to defend was given.

Accordingly, the bench quashed the petitioner's termination dated February 14, 2006. Consequently, the court also set aside the orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner, which had upheld the dismissal.

Since respondent No.7's appointment and notification as Panchayat Secretary stemmed from the petitioner's illegal termination, the bench quashed the Gram Panchayat resolution dated March 06, 2006, the appointment letter dated March 07, 2006, and the notification dated January 27, 2006. Recognizing the long tenure of respondent No.7, the court permitted him to make a representation to the State Government for consideration of his continued service. It directed the authorities to examine such representation sympathetically.

Furthermore, the bench allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Panchayatkarmi without any back wages. However, it granted liberty to the authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the 1999 Rules.

For Petitioner: Advocate Sourav Singh Tomar

For State: Government Advocate G.K. Agarwal

For Respondents: Advocates Pratip Visoriya and Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Case Title: Narendra Kumar Sharma v The State Of Madhya Pradesh (WRIT PETITION No. 2696 of 2016)

Click here to read the order