JUDGMENT
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 30-7-2007 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 9457/2007.
2. The relevant facts briefly are that the appellant was appointed as From the Judgment and Order dated 30-7-2007 of the Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 9457/2007. Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Karri in District Shahdol in the State of M.P. on 13-11-1995 and thereafter was notified as Secretary of the Panchayat by the Collector, Shahdol on 12-10-1999. While he was working as a Secretary, he was served with a notice dated 21-6-2007 to show cause why the charge of Panchayat Secretary shall not be withdrawn from him because of the allegation against him that some essential commodities belonging to ration card-holders were found in his possession and prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against him was pending. The appellant submitted his reply and after considering the reply, the Collector, Shahdol passed an order dated 29-6-2007 for denotification of the appellant as Secretary of the Panchayat on the ground that he was disqualified for the post of Panchayat Secretary.
3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, but the Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Collector by his order dated 16-7-2007. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 9457/2007, but by the impugned order dated 30-7- 2007, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition summarily. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that since the appellant in his reply to the show-cause notice had stated that the ration card holders had kept the essential commodities in possession of the appellant and had gone for plucking tendupatta, the appellant had not committed any misconduct as such. He submitted that affidavits have also been filed by the ration card holders confirming this fact and yet the Collector has taken a view that the explanation given by the appellant to the show-cause notice was not satisfactory. He submitted that the Collector should have first directed an inquiry conducted against the appellant before denotifying him as a Panchayat Secretary under Section 69 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and in such an inquiry the appellant who have had the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his explanation.
5. We have heard Mr. Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, submitted that since the material before the Collector, Shahdol did show that the appellant had indulged in misconduct and that a criminal case had also been instituted against him under the Essential Commodities Act, the Collector thought it proper to withdraw the charge of Secretary of the Panchayat from the appellant by making a denotification under Section 69 (1) of the Act. He further submitted that the order passed by the Collector would show that appellant continues to be a Panchayat Karmi and that the SDO concerned has been directed to inquire into the allegations against the appellant.
6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the Collector, Shahdol has lost sight of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the Rules, 1999’) while passing the order dated 29-6-2007 denotifying the appellant as Panchayat Secretary under Section 69 (1) of the Act. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of the Rules, 1999 states that except otherwise provided by or under these rules, they apply to all persons employed in connection with the affairs of inter alia the Gram Panchayat and discharging the functions of Gram Panchayat. Secretary of Gram Panchayat is employed in connection with the affairs of Gram Panchayat and discharging the functions of Gram Panchayat. Hence, the Rules, 1999 are applicable to him. It is not disputed that the appellant was notified as Panchayat Secretary as far back as on 12-10-1999 and is working as such Panchayat Secretary for about eight years. Hence any action against the appellant for misconduct could only be taken in accordance with the Rules, 1999 and not otherwise.
7. Part III of the Rules, 1999 provides for penalties. Rule 5 categorised the minor penalties and the major penalties which can be imposed on a member of the Panchayat Service. Under Clause (b) major penalties which can be imposed on a member of a Panchayat Service have been enumerated and reduction in rank and removal from service have been categorised as major penalties. When a Secretary of a Gram Panchayat is either reverted to the rank of Panchayat Karmi or removed from the post of Secretary, he suffers a major penalty mentioned under Clause (b) of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1999.
8. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 provides that no order imposing on a member of the Panchayat Service any of the major penalties shall be passed except after a formal inquiry is held as far as may be in the manner provided therein. Hence, unless the procedure laid down in the Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 is followed, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat cannot be removed or reverted from the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the stand taken by the appellant that he could not have been removed from the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat or could not have been reverted to a lower post of Panchayat Karmi without an inquiry appears to be correct.
9. Nonetheless Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999 provides that the Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or Disciplinary Authority may place a member of Panchayat Service under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude is under investigation, inquiry or trial. In the present case, since; an inquiry into the charges of misconduct against the appellant has been ordered by the Collector, Shahdol, a disciplinary case is pending against him.
10. That apart a criminal case for violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act is also pending against the appellant. Hence, the Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority or any authority to which the Appointing Authority is subordinate have the power to place the appellant under suspension. But instead of placing the appellant under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and pending the criminal trial, the Collector, Shahdol has reverted the appellant to the rank of Panchayat Karmi or has removed him from the post of Panchayat Secretary contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1999 as discussed above.
11. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 30-7-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, quash the order dated 29-6-2007 of the Collector, Shahdol as well as the order dated 16-7-2007 of the Commissioner, Rewa Division, and leave it open for the Collector to pass an order of suspension of the appellant in accordance with the Rules, 1999.