Arvind Kumar Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Arvind Kumar Khare vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 18, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1054169

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1054169
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Oct 18, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arvind Kumar Khare

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....initially a notice for recovery of `15,19,000/- from the petitioner was issued, subsequently the amount was reduced to `10,07,593/-. it is the case of the petitioner that in the proceedings held before the sub divisional officer under section 92 of the madhya pradesh panchayat raj avam gram swaraj adhiniyam, 1993, the sub divisional officer in his order-dated 20.3.2012 - annexure p/8 has exonerated the petitioner, has not found him guilty of any mis- appropriation, it is only the sarpanch - smt. usha rathore, who is held responsible and, therefore, it is stated that the recovery is illegal. 2 shri sanjeev kumar singh, learned counsel for the state, points out that the order is nothing but a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner by the chief executive officer and against the aforesaid order petitioner can file an appeal before the collector under the statutory rules and, therefore, interference into the matter by this court at this stage is not called for. having heard the objection raised by shri sanjeev kumar singh, i find much force in the same. the statutory remedy of appeal and revision is available to the petitioner and, therefore, a petition directly before this court by-passing the statutory remedy is not permissible. accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recours.to the statutory remedy available, this writ petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-

Full Judgment

Arvind Kumar Khare versus State of MP and otheRs.18.10.2012.

Shri Swapnil Ganguly for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice.

Challenging the order-dated 5.9.2012 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Tikamgarh directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of `15,19,000/- or in the alternate threatening to take disciplinary action against him, petitioner has approached this Court.

Petitioner was Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and a show-cause notice - Annexure P/1 was issued to him on 29.7.2011, wherein it was indicated that certain irregularities have been committed in the Gram Panchayat in the matter of executing certain work under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and, therefore, action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner and various other persons.

Even though initially a notice for recovery of `15,19,000/- from the petitioner was issued, subsequently the amount was reduced to `10,07,593/-.

It is the case of the petitioner that in the proceedings held before the Sub Divisional Officer under section 92 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, the Sub Divisional Officer in his order-dated 20.3.2012 - Annexure P/8 has exonerated the petitioner, has not found him guilty of any mis- appropriation, it is only the Sarpanch - Smt.

Usha Rathore, who is held responsible and, therefore, it is stated that the recovery is illegal.

2 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State, points out that the order is nothing but a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer and against the aforesaid order petitioner can file an appeal before the Collector under the statutory rules and, therefore, interference into the matter by this Court at this stage is not called for.

Having heard the objection raised by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, I find much force in the same.

The statutory remedy of appeal and revision is available to the petitioner and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court by-passing the statutory remedy is not permissible.

Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy available, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Arvind Kumar Khare vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education