The Court clarified the applicability of section 87 and section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 in the context of the dissolution of the Panchayat and the removal of an 'Office Bearer'.

ORDER PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 20-1-2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16440 of 2020, whereby, petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Karondi Tola, Janpad Panchayat Manpur, District Shahdol for a period of five years from 2015 till March, 2020. Since the election could not take place before expiry of the duration of Panchayat, therefore, on 8-3-2020, the State Government in exercise of power conferred under section 87(3)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “Act of 1993) directed that all powers and duties of the Panchayat shall, until the Panchayat is reconstituted, be exercised and performed by the Committee of persons. The State Government also decided that the Head of the Committee would be the outgoing Sarpanch who was holding the post of Sarpanch on the date of expiration of the term of five years. In pursuance to the directions dated 8-3-2020, the appellant was appointed as “Pradhan” of the Administrative Committee. On account of certain complaints against the appellant-petitioner for causing financial loss and working against the interest of the Panchayat, vide order dated 25-8-2020, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat constituted a Committee and directed to submit its report. The inquiry report was submitted on 10-9-2020 in which certain anomalies were reported. On 11-9-2020, a show cause notice was issued against the appellant-petitioner alleging various financial irregularities against him. The appellant-petitioner filed W. P. No. 13308-2020 before this Court which was decided on 21-9-2020 directing the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Manpur to take appropriate steps in the matter and provide proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant-petitioner before taking any action. On 14-10-2020 (Annexure P-14), an action for removal of the appellant-petitioner was taken which was challenged by the appellant by filing W. P. No. 16440-2020. The learned Single Judge held that there was no fault in the impugned order dated 14-10-2020 (Annexure P-14) and dismissed the said petition against which the appellant has filed the instant writ appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner submits that the inquiry was conducted behind the back of the appellant-petitioner; the impugned action of removal taken against the appellant-petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. He also submits that the provisions of section 40 of the Act of 1993 have not been followed and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and we find no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. From the perusal of the record, we find that the show-cause notice was given to the appellant. So far as the argument of the counsel for the appellant that the inquiry was conducted behind the back of the appellant-petitioner is concerned, it is found that the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Committee was inquisitorial in nature and was only with an object to find out whether there was enough material to proceed against the appellant-petitioner. The inquiry-investigation conducted by the Committee by itself does not prejudice the appellant-petitioner in any manner. It was on the basis of material collected during the inquisitorial process, a show-cause notice was given to the appellant-petitioner and he did submit his reply to the said show-cause notice, therefore, it cannot be held that the action taken against the appellant-petitioner was in violation of principles of natural justice.

6. So far the argument with respect to non adherence to the provisions of section 40 of the Act of 1993 is concerned, the same also does not ha