MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON MANIK LAL JANGHELA V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, March 28 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 24:

1. Appellant impugns order dated 09.10.2025, whereby the petition filed by the appellant seeking posting as Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat has been dismissed.

2. Appellant was working as a Gram Rojgar Sahayak, he was allegedly trapped by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Organization and caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs.20,000/- on 15.03.2022. He was initially terminated from service however, he challenged his termination order in WP No.31063 of 2023, which was allowed on the ground that the respondent was unable to show that charge-sheet had been filed in the criminal court. The learned Writ Court referred to circular dated 02.11.2019 and noticed that it had not been complied with hence, the termination order was set aside.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been reinstated and attached in the office of Janpad Panchayat. Appellant seeks posting as Gram Rojgar Sahayak at the Gram Panchayat where he was earlier posted. The Writ Court has noticed that appellant is facing trial for corruption charges and as such could not demand to discharge the same functions as he was performing earlier as the same involved financial duties. The Writ Court was of the view that until the appellant is exonerated of the criminal charges, he could not be granted financial duties.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the circular dated 04.05.2024 to contend that the appellant could not be attached in the office of Janpad Panchayat for a period exceeding two months. Clearly, the said circular dated 04.05.2024 has no applicability to the facts of the present case. The said circular has been issued on the ground that the officers of the Gram Panchayat are diverted for other duties. In those circumstances, the circular has been issued that they cannot be diverted for other duties.

5. We are surprised to note that the circular also refers that when petitions are filed the officers have to file affidavits in the High Court and in those circumstances, it is directed that in future no person who is employed in the Gram Panchayat should be attached to other offices. This type of blanket circular cannot be issued. The facts and circumstances of each case are required to be considered independently.

6. In the instant case, it is not a case of diversion of the appellant from Gram Panchayat to Janpad Panchayat. Appellant has been attached in the office of Janpad Panchayat in view of the fact that he is facing criminal trial and that also on the ground of allegedly accepting bribe while performing his duties.

7. We are of the view that no error has been committed by the department attaching the appellant in the office of Janpad Panchayat pending his trial. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Writ Court. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.