Sitaram Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Per: Justice B.P.Sharma:

This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.31184/2025, whereby the writ petition challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rewa, entrusting the financial charge of Gram Panchayat Barah to respondent No.5 by way of additional charge, came to be dismissed.

The appellant is working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Barah, Janpad Panchayat Jawa, District Rewa. A complaint was submitted by the Sarpanch alleging that the appellant was not taking adequate interest in implementation of Government welfare schemes and developmental works of the Gram Panchayat were being adversely affected. Acting upon the complaint, the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, forwarded a proposal recommending three names of neighbouring Panchayat Secretaries for being entrusted with the financial charge of Gram Panchayat Barah. On the basis of the said proposal, the CEO, passed the order dated 15.07.2025 entrusting the financial charge to respondent No.5 while permitting the appellant to continue on the substantive post of Panchayat Secretary. The appellant challenged the said order before the learned Single Judge contending that the action was contrary to the M.P. Panchayat Sewa Rules, 2011, and is punitive in nature and had been passed without any enquiry or opportunity of hearing. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the impugned order was merely an administrative arrangement made in public interest and neither amounts to any punishment nor cast any stigma upon the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the financial powers attached to the office of Panchayat Secretary constitute an integral part of the post and could not have been withdrawn while the appellant continued to occupy the substantive post. It was argued that Rule 6(12) of the Rules, 2011 permits entrustment of additional charge only when the post falls vacant and, therefore, the respondents had no authority to withdraw the financial charge from a regularly posted Panchayat Secretary. It was further contended that the proposal was based solely upon the complaint of the Sarpanch, who was personally biased against the appellant, and that no enquiry, notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the impugned order. Reliance was also placed upon the interim order passed in W.P. No.295/2025, wherein operation of a similar order had been stayed, and it was urged that the appellant was entitled to identical relief.

4 . Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.4 and 5 supported the impugned order and submitted that the complaint revealed that the appellant was not effectively implementing Government schemes, resulting in adverse impact upon public administration. It was contended that, in order to ensure smooth functioning of the Gram Panchayat, the competent authority merely entrusted the financial charge to another Panchayat Secretary without disturbing the appellant's substantive appointment. The respondents submitted that no employee possesses a vested right to insist upon holding a particular financial or additional charge and that the order is purely administrative, neither punitive nor stigmatic, and therefore does not attract the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the interim order passed in W.P. No.295/2025 does not constitute a binding precedent.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The appellant continues to hold the substantive post of Panchayat Secretary and impugned order merely entrust financial charge of the Gram Panchayat to another Panchayat Secretary as an administrative measure to ensure effective implementation of Government schemes and smooth functioning of the Gram Panchayat. The order does not record any finding of misconduct against the appellant and also does not impose any penalty recognised under the service rules and does not cast any stigma upon him. Therefore, the action cannot be construed as punitive merely because certain financial responsibilities have been assigned to another officer. The appellant cannot claim continuance of financial charge as a matter of legal right.

The contention founded upon Rule 6(12) of the Rules, 2011 also does not merit acceptance. The order has been passed by the competent authority in exercise of administrative powers with a view to safeguard public interest and ensures uninterrupted functioning of the Gram Panchayat. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the competent authority lacked jurisdiction or that any mandatory statutory provision has been violated. Equally devoid of merit is the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice. Since the impugned order neither imposes any punishment nor adversely affects the appellant's substantive service rights, no prior enquiry or opportunity of hearing was required before making such administrative arrangement. Likewise, reliance upon the interim order passed in W.P. No.295/2025 is misconceived, as an interim order neither decides the rights of the parties finally nor lays down any binding proposition of law.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error or illegality. Consequently, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.