1. Petitioner is assailing the order P-4 passed by the SDO and order P-6 passed in appeal by the Additional Collector on 20.8.1999. Petitioner's removal was ordered by SDO u/s 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. The Additional Collector dismissed the appeal. Revision preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur was dismissed as per order P-7 passed on 27.10.2001.

2. Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ghughari Naveen, Block Sihora, Tehsil Sihora, district Jabalpur. While he was holding the post, complaint was filed by Ayodhya Prasad and three others to initiate action u/s 40 of the Act. Pursuant to the filing of the complaint a show-cause notice P-2 was issued to the petitioner on 18/19th February, 1999 containing the allegations that petitioner advanced the benefit of Indira Avas Yojana and IRDP Scheme to her husband. Shri Munnalal, Up-Sarpanch, Hiralal and Laxmiprasad Panchs were also given the benefit of Indira Avas Yojna and IRDP Scheme. Up-Sarpanch was given the grant of Rs. 4,000/- and Hiralal, Panch was given the grant of Rs. 6,000/- and of Rs. 28,000/- as against keeping buffaloes and benefits of Indira Avas Yojna was also extended. Similar benefit of Indira Avas Yojna was given to Laxmi Prasad, Panch and the persons who were given the benefit of Indira Avas Yojna did not construct their house, as such the petitioner is liable for the misappropriation of the money of the Government. The petitioner knew it well that the benefit of such Government Scheme could not be extended to Panchas of Gram Panchayat. The petitioner was required to show-cause and to indicate that the beneficiaries have spent how much money failing which action will be taken to remove the petitioner u/s 40.

3. Petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice contending that Munnalal was living below the poverty line, his name was mentioned in survey list at No. 5270, his annual income was below Rs. 2,500/-. Hence, giving the benefit of IRDP Scheme cannot be said to be improper. Similar contention was raised about Hiralal and Laxmi Prasad Panchas. They were also the persons whose names have been mentioned in the survey list of the persons living below the poverty line and in the circular issued on 7.4.1995 by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of State of Madhya Pradesh, it was not specifically mentioned that the benefit cannot be extended to the office holder of Gram Panchayat. The amendment has been made in Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam in the year 1997, published in the gazette on 7.1.1997. The benefit of IRDP Scheme was given to the husband of the petitioner in the year 1996 and that of Indira Avas Yojna in 1997 which has been given by the Janpad Panchayat, Panchayat.

4. Petitioner submits that no enquiry was held by the competent authority and outrightly an order of removal has been passed after receipt of the reply. It is the further submission that the enquiry was necessitated in the facts and circumstances of the case as the consequence which falls is disqualification for six years when an incumbent is removal u/s 40 of the Act.

5. Respondents have produced the file of SDO. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the nature of enquiry has to depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, facts are not much in dispute as such the order passed is proper. No detailed enquiry was required to be held. No interference is required to be made in the order passed by the SDO, affirmed by the Additional Collector and the Commissioner.

6. Shri Vikas Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the Court through various order-sheets and material on record to submit that no enquiry was held by the SDO which is the prescribed authority. On the contrary the enquiry report was called from Panchayat Inspector. That report was placed not before the prescribed authority, but, before another Sub-Divi