Full Judgment
Devendra Singh Rajput versus State & ORS.W.P.No.1272/2011 08/11/2012 Shri Maninder Singh Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.
Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for Respondent No.5.
This is a case, where the petitioner, a Secretary of Gram Panchayat Konikala under Janpad Panchayat Majholi, Tehsil Sihora District-Jabalpur has been removed from the post on basis of certain enquiry conducted against him.
It is the case of the petitioner that no enquiry has been conducted and even if any enquiry is conducted, it is behind the back of the petitioner and, therefore, the action is illegal.
Taking note of the totality of the circumstances, this Court on 30th of January, 2012 directed Respondent No.4 the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Majholi to produce the entire original enquiry report and file an affidavit indicating as to whether the enquiry was conducted bye-party and whether the petitioner participated in the enquiry.
Even though, the time was granted but ultimately the Chief Executive Officer has filed an affidavit before this Court vide I.A.No.8250/2012.
The affidavit is filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Majholi one Shri Mukesh Jain and in Devendra Singh Rajput versus State & ORS.his affidavit, it is stated by him that the entire enquiry report is missing.
In Para-2 of the affidavit, it is stated by Shri Jain that on 16.5.2012, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sihora intimated him that a case has been registered in the year 2002-03 but the record of the said case was not available in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer after the case was disposed of.
On an enqury, it was found that the record was called for when the proceedings were held before the Commissioner Jabalpur but from the said office on 1.1.2005, the record was returned back to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sihora and at that point of time, one Shri Vishnu Singh Thakur was Reader in the Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sihora, thereafter, it was stated that the records are missing.
If an enquiry was conducted, the record should be available and it is surprising that the record is said to be missing and such an affidavit is filed.
I am of the considered view that with regard to the record in question, a proper enquiry should be conducted and a report called for.
In view of the above, the Collector, Jabalpur is directed to nominate a person working under him and get an enquiry with regard to the file in question conducted and submit a report to this Court with regard to the same by 20th of January, 2013.
A copy of this order and a copy of interlocutory application i.e.I.A.No.8250/2012 and the affidavit filed by Shri Mukesh Jain, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Majholi be sent to the Devendra Singh Rajput versus State & ORS.Collector District-Jabalpur with a request to conduct an enquiry into the matter and file a report to this Court.
Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 stated that the matter be proceeded against and the adveRs.inference drawn, I am of the considered view that the question of missing of a crucial record cannot be taken so lightly and an enquiry has to be conducted in the matter.
For the present, I am not inclined to proceed in the matter without getting the enquiry report in this regard.
Accordingly, prayer made by Shri Praveen Verma for hearing the matter without the availability of the record is rejected.
List the matter on 20th of January, 2013.
A copy of this order be given to Shri S.S.Bisen also.
(Rajendra Menon) 0Judge nd