Smt. Nirmala Baiga vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2011 by which the petitioner, who was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kamta, Janpad Panchayat Budhar, Tehsil Jaitpur, District Shahdol, has been removed on account of the fact that she was not complying with the directions issued by the higher authorities as well as the Collector. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Panchayat Karmi/Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat had been removed but he had obtained orders for his reinstatement from the Collector as well as the Commissioner. It is submitted that as the petitioner was directed to certify the signature of the said Panchayat Secretary against whom there were several complaints and who was repeatedly interfering in the functioning of the petitioner, the petitioner raised objections thereto and in response to which proceedings were taken up against the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. It is submitted that the respondent authorities did not comply with the principles of natural justice by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or conducted any enquiry and, therefore, in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the cases of Mango Bai Vs. State of M.P. and others, Smt. Manita Jaiwar Vs. State of M.P. and Others, and Smt. Phool Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that in respect of the deliberate disobedience on the part of the petitioner to acknowledge and comply with the direction to certify the signatures of the Panchayat Secretary, who had been reinstated by the order passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner, a notice was issued to the petitioner u/s 40 of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. In response to the said notice the petitioner filed a reply and has stated that as there were complaints against the Secretary and as there was ambiguity in the order passed by the Collector and Commissioner, therefore, she had not complied with the directions. The SDO, on examining the aforesaid aspect, has stated that as it is not a disputed fact that the petitioner has not complied with the directions, therefore, she deserves to be removed and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.7.2011 has been passed.

From a perusal of the facts and circumstances on record, it is clear that the petitioner in her reply has infact admitted that she has not complied with the directions though she has given an excuse of there being ambiguity between the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the directions issued by the authorities is an admitted fact and in such circumstances the question of conducting any further enquiry in the matter does not arise.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. It is also observed that as the present case is one of admitted facts the decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no applicability to the present case. The petition, filed by the petitioner, being meritless is accordingly dismissed.