ORDER :

Maninder S. Bhatti, J.

This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No.1990/2020.

2. For the sake of convenience the facts of W. P. No.2148/2020 are being taken note of.

3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bhajipani, District Chhindwara. The respondent no.8, committed certain irregularities causing hindrance to the work of gram panchayat. Thereafter, the complaint was also made against the respondent no.8 regarding theft of stone. Therefore, while keeping grudge respondent no.8 made false complaint against the present petitioner. The same ensued in issuance of a show cause notice dated 30-10-2019 (Annexure-P/5) to the petitioner. The said notice was duly replied by the petitioner vide his reply dated 11-11-2019. On 21-11-2019, the petitioner received another show cause notice which was also replied by the petitioner vide his reply dated 06-12-2019. Vide impugned order dated 11-1-2020 without extending any opportunity of hearing, an order under Section 92 was passed against the petitioner by which, on allegation of defalcation of an amount of Rs..5,54,258/-, recovery against the petitioner was ordered and another order dated 13-1-2020 (Annexure-P/8) was passed by which, the petitioner in purported exercise of powers conferred under Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayatraj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was removed.

4. Thus, assailing these orders dated 11-1-2020 (Anneuxre-P/7) as well as 13-1-2020 (Annexure-P/8), this petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, without conducting an inquiry in terms of Section 89 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 directly an order under Section 92 has been passed. It is also contended by the counsel that no inquiry was conducted prior to the passing of order under Section 92 or an under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993. It is contended by the counsel that the show cause notice dated 21-11-2019 reflects that so far as the removal is concerned, the petitioner was not called upon to revert back and the petitioner was flabbergasted to receive the impugned order dated 13-1-2020 by which, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch under Section 40 of the Ahiniyam of 1993. The counsel contends that the order under Section 40 of the Ahiniyam of 1993 having civil consequences could not have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing and without a fulfledged inquiry allowing participation of the petitioner therein. The petitioner being an elected candidate could not have been subjected to the arbitrary action on the strength of the order dated 13-1-2020.

6. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of recovery under Section 92 is also grossly misconceived inasmuch as, the same could not have been passed without ensuring procedure laid down under Section 89 of the Ahiniyam of 1993.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the ordered and another order dated 13-1-2020 (Annexure-P/8) was passed by which, the petitioner in purported exercise of powers conferred under Section 40 of the M.P. Panchayatraj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was removed. decision of this Court in the case of Radheshyam Kochak s/o Jagannath Kochak vs. State of M.P ., WP No.7672/2015 which has been relied upon by this Court in the case of Kadam Singh vs. CEO & ors, 2019(1) M.P.L.J. 420 and which has been relied upon by this Court in the cases of Smt. Raina Bai vs. State of M.P. , WP No.10060/2019, Narendra and anr. vs. State of M.