The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision-making process adopted by the respondents must comply with the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate of Sections 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Appeal filed under Section 2(A) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the order dated 03.02.2021, whereby the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. Drapped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the appellant was working as Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat, Dethli Bujurg. The appellant submitted a complain on 18.12.2013 (Annexure-P/6) before the Collector for conducting an inquiry regarding irregularity of work in the said Panchayat. The appellant preferred yet another complain of similar nature before the Commissioner on 06.10.2017 (Annexure-P/8). A Fact Finding Inquiry was conducted by Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jila Panchayat, Mandsaur. He submitted report of fact finding inquiry on 06.11.2017 (Annexure-P/2). By communication dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure-P/7), the CEO directed the appellant to remain present for recording statement on her complain. In turn, appellant's statement was recorded on 14.11.2017 (Annexure-R/1). Thereafter, on 01.12.2017 (Annexure-R/2), the CEO issued a show-cause notice to the appellant. The appellant filed her reply on 21.12.2017 (Annexure-P/9). The CEO again issued another notice of similar nature on 21.12.2017 (Annexure-R/2). The appellant again filed her response on 04.01.2018 (Annexure-P/9). Interestingly, two more show-cause notices of similar nature were issued on 19.02.2018 and 15.03.2018 (cumulatively marked as Annexure-R/2).

3. In purported exercise of power under Section 92 of the Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Adhiniyam), the CEO passed the order dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure-P/3) and imposed a recovery of Rs. 10,10,980/- on the appellant. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged this order before the learned Commissioner who dismissed her appeal on 08.06.2020 (Annexure-P/1).

4. The CEO issued yet another show-cause notice under Section 92(2) of the Adhiniyam on 22.09.2020 (Annexure-P/12). The appellant filed her reply on 25.09.2020 (Annexure-P/13). The order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the CEO., Jila Panchayat and appellate order dated 08.06.2020 were called in question before the learned Single Judge.

5. Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that (i) the appellant herself prayed for conducting an inquiry. The inquiry report dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure-P/2) was prepared prior in time than the show-cause notices which were issued subsequently. Along with show-cause notices, inquiry report (Annexure-P/2) was not supplied to the appellant. (ii) The inquiry report is in fact a 'fact finding inquiry' report. Before preparation of this report, the appellant was not informed about the nature of allegations/charge against her. Hence, this report prepared behind the back of the appellant and without informing her about the nature of allegations, cannot be used to hold the petitioner as guilty.

6. In the final order dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure-P/3), the appellant's replies aforesaid were not considered at all. The final order is based on the inquiry report (Annexure-P/2) which was prepared without putting the appellant to notice with specific allegations. The impugned orders are not reasoned orders. The decision making process adopted by the respondents are contrary to principal of natural justice.

7. Learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand supported the order of learned Single Judge.

8. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

9. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

10. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge gave following findings:-

"7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was Surpanch of Gram Panchayat for the period of 5 years commencing from January 2010 to December 2014 and during this period Lalchand Bhaskar was the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Undisputedly during this period, funds were sanctioned for construction of 75 toilets out of which only 10 toilets were constructed. Complaints