Compliance with the principles of natural justice and the authority of the Chief Executive Officer under Section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

1. The petitioner is before this court by of the writ petition filed under art 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order dated 6.4.2018 passed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Panchayat, Mandsaur u/s. 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam") directing recovery of Rs. 10,10,980/- and also the order dated 8.6.2020 passed by Commissioner, Ujjain whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :

The petitioner was elected as Surpanch of Gram Panchayat Dethli Bujurg, Tehsil and District Mandsaur for the period from 2010 to 2014. During the aforesaid tenure, under the scheme known as "Panch Parmeshwar Yojna" and "Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan" for construction of 75 toilets funds were allotted by the State Government. Out of 75 toilets, only 10 toilets were constructed and the remaining fund has been misappropriated by the then Secretary and Surpanch. A complaint to that effect was made to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. A Preliminary a Enquiry was got conducted and the report came against her. On a request made by the petitioner, vide order dated 6.11.2017, the CEO, Zila Panchayat was directed to conduct re-inquiry and submit the report. The CEO issued the notice dated 10.11.2017 to the petitioner, Secretary - Lalchand Bhaskar and husband of the petitioner (commonly known as Surpanch Pati). On 10.11.2017, Nanalal Patidar (Surpanch Pati) appeared and stated that he will give the statement on behalf of the Surpanch i.e. petitioner and sought time up to 13.11.2017. On the said date, statement of previous Secretary - Vinkesh Patidar was recorded who informed that he took the charge of the post of Incharge Secretary on 31.12.2013 and remained in charge up to 2.6.2014 and during that period, there was no such transaction and he did not know about the irregularities committed by Lalchand Bhaskar. Lalchand Bhaskar Secretary of Gram Panchayat appeared before the CEO and recorded his statement that he assumed the charge of the post of Secretary on 21.7.2012 and admitted that out of 75, only 10 toilets were constructed and the construction material of 65 toilets was purchased. All the sanctioned amount has been withdrawn by the joint signature of Surpanch and Secretary. He has also alleged that Surpanch Pati after obtaining her signature used to take the Cheque to his house for taking the signature of the present petitioner and thereafter he prepared the voucher, M.B. & Muster bill and after obtaining the signature of the Sub Engineer, withdrawn the amount from the bank. He deposed that after the charge was taken from him, the record has been misplaced. Had he forged the signature of Surpanch, then the complaint would have been made at the relevant point of time by the petitioner or her husband. Statement of Gram Rojgar Sahayak - Kaluram Jatav was also recorded, in which he deposed that he is working since 4.3.2013 in the Panchayat and the petitioner being a Surpanch used to come to Panchayat only on 15th August and 26th January and in the remaining period, the panchayat work used to be done by the Surpanch Pati-Nanalal Patidar.

On 14.11.2017, statement of Shyamubai - present petitioner and her husband - Nanalal Patidar were recorded. In his statement, Nanalal Patidar admitted that his wife Shyamubai was Surpanch of the Gram Panchayat for a period from January 2010 to December 2014 and her specimen signatures were taken for operating the Bank Account. After Vidhan Sabha elections when she went to the Bank along with him for withdrawal of the amount to make payment of vendors, then she came to know that the Secretary - Lalchand Bhaskar has withdrawn the entire amount by forging her signatures in the cheques, therefore, a complaint was made to the Collector on 18.12.2013. Surpanch Pati in his statement has stated that the petitioner is educated up to 4th Standard, therefore, he used to assist her in