1. Shri Chaphekar counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner is not only inconsistent with the provisions of law but destructive to the benevolvent object of "INDIRA AWAS YOJNA". He further submitted that the action which is being assailed by this petition is inconsistent with the procedure laid down for taking such action in view of the provisions of Section 40 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, for convenience). He pointed-out that an inquiry. has been contemplated which has to be made properly; lawfully by the officers taking action in view of the provisions of Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.

2. Shri Chaphekar further submitted that in the present case there has been absolutely no grievance from any comer of the society or the beneficiaries of Indira Avas Yojna. He submitted that the petitioner happened to be an executive person elected to the Panchayat from village Chapakheda and being so he was requested by the office bearers of Janpad Panchayat Chapakheda to guide them for constructing the houses in view of the said Avas Yojna. He further submitted that the said huts have been constructed well within time, satisfactorily and there is absolutely nothing with the opponents to point-out that there has been loss either to government, administration, beneficiaries under the Avas Yojna or any member of the public at large. He further submitted that the order and the action which is being assailed by this petition is thus against the spirit of the Avas Yojna, law and violative of the principles of natural justice.

3. Shri Prakash Verma, learned Dy. GA appearing for the respondents tried to justify the order under challenge by submitting that the role which was to be played by the petitioner was of the President, Janpad Panchayat, Nalkheda, district Shajapur and as such he was not expected to accept the role in the committee which was constituted by Grampanchayat Chapakheda. He submitted that this deviation from the duty assigned to the President of above-mentioned Janpad Panchayat has been disturbed by the role played by the petitioner as the Chairman of the said Committee and therefore, it amounted to misconduct. He further submitted that if the Presidents of Janpad Panchayat starts functioning otherwise than indicated by the post they hold, there would be indiscipline in the functioning of the said Janpad Panchayat.

4. Answering the queries made by the Court Shri Verma had to submit that there was no complaint whatsoever from the concerned beneficiaries, any member of concerned Panchayat Samiti or any member of the Public. He further had to submit that no loss was caused financially or otherwise to the Janpad Parishad or the duties which were to be performed by the petitioner as President of Janpad Panchayat. He further submitted that the work of constructing such huts has been completed well within time and there is no ground whatsoever to have a complaint in that context. He had also to submit that no loss has been caused to the government, administration or to said Janpad Panchayat by the act which has been a subject matter of the action taken against the petitioner.

5. Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam provides that :

(i) The State Government or the prescribed authority may after such enquiry as it may deem fit to make at any time, remove an office bearer –

(a) if he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or

(b) if his continuance in office is undesirable in the interest of the public;

Provided that no person shall be removed unless he has been given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed from his office.

Explanation -- For the purpose of this sub-Section "Misconduct" shall include :--

(a) any action adversely affecting –

(i) the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;

(ii) the harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the