The court reaffirmed that principles of natural justice must be observed in inquiry processes, especially in cases of removal from office, while recognizing that proven guilt mitigates claims of procedural prejudice.

ORDER :

Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Kharyani Janpad Panchayat, Bijawar District- Chhatarpur (M.P.) has challenged the legality, validity and proprietary of order dated 14.08.2023 passed by Commissioner Sagar, Division Sagar in Appeal No. 145/Appeal/2023-24 (Annexure P/1), whereby the Learned Commissioner upheld the order passed by Prescribed Authority (Panchayat) cum CEO, Zila Panchayat, Chhatarpur on 30.06.2023 in Case No. 001/ Section 40 -92/2023-24 holding petitioner guilty for the embezzlement of government exchequer amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 88,820/- respectively.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was duly elected and due to the political reasons, report was lodged by caveator alleging the embezzlement of the amount on the ground that despite no work was carried out, the amount was withdrawn from Gram Panchayat and misappropriated by the petitioner and Panchayat Secretary. He further submits that before passing the impugned order by CEO, under Section 40 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, no proper inquiry was conducted, statements of the witnesses were not recorded, the petitioner was not provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and only on the basis of inspection report, the order was passed which is bad in law and liable to be quashed. He relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench delivered in the matter of Mango Bai Vs. State of M.P. and others (2003) 2 MPLJ 112, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has held that before holding guilty, the proper opportunity of hearing should be granted. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced as under :

8. In the instant case the only question for consideration is whether the enquiry has been properly held before ordering removal of the petitioner u/s 40. No doubt about it SDO directed Panchayat Inspector to submit the report, but, the enquiry was not held by the Inspector in presence of the petitioner and report submitted by Panchayat Inspector was also not supplied to the petitioner which constituted adverse material which ought to have been supplied to the petitioner. Show-cause notice mentioned that work was not done by the beneficiaries and whether there is total misappropriation of the amount advanced, are questions on which an enquiry ought to have been held. Petitioner ought to have been allowed to adduce the evidence and only after determination of question about the misappropriation of the money advanced and what role as a matter of fact was played by the petitioner in the capacity of Sarpanch in disbursement of loan by Janpad Panchayat, was also the subject matter of evidence for which the petitioner ought to have been allowed an opportunity to adduce the evidence.

9. Principles of natural justice are required to be observed before ordering removal of Sarpanch u/s 40 of the Act. In Kailash v. State of M.P. [1999 (2) JLJ 280] esteemed brother S.P. Khare, J. considered the question and held that removal of Sarpanch u/s 40 is a serious matter when he is removed and further disqualified for six years to be elected under the Act. It is not sufficient to give a mere lip-service to the requirement of law. It is true that it is not specifically provided in section 40 that principles of natural justice should be followed while holding an enquiry but it is implicit in this provision that the officer-bearer who is sought to be removed will be given a fair hearing. This Court held that the words "after such inquiry as it may deem fit to make" in the mai