1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 30.3.2016 and 20.4.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No.3, in proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority concerned has passed orders under section 92 of the Act, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount due from her and on the failure of the petitioner to do so, has issued a warrant of arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority concerned has passed orders without forming an opinion as to whether any amount is due from the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that an enquiry in respect of misappropriation of fund regarding construction of toilet in Janpad Panchayat, Bidhua, District Chhindwara was conducted in which it was found that the petitioner and the Secretary had misappropriated a sum of Rs.7,90,400/-, pursuant to which directions were issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bidhua that proceedings for recovery of the amount under section 92 of the Act, be initiated against the petitioner/sarpanch and the Secretary. Pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings a show cause notice dated 1.8.2015 under section 92 of the Act, was issued to the petitioner. Order sheets indicated that inspite of service of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on several occasions while the Secretary appeared and deposited certain amount. As the petitioner did not appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on a number of occasions nor did she deposit the amount, a warrant of arrested was issued against her. A perusal of the order sheet dated 29.6.2016 indicates that even the warrant issued against the petitioner was not served upon the petitioner and, therefore, the date of the validity of the warrant was extended. However, subsequently, on the same date the petitioner appeared before the authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chhindwara and deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- and sought time to deposit the remaining amount. Order sheet also indicates that the matter was thereafter taken up on 13.7.2016 on which date the petitioner against remained absent. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer without doing anything further, adjourned the matter and directed its listing on 27.7.2016.

4. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition raising the grounds as stated above.

5. From a perusal of the aforesaid documents filed by the petitioner along with the petition, it is apparent that the authority had initiated proceedings against the petitioner after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has not filed any reply to the same till date. The order sheet indicate that the petitioner has not been appearing before the Sub-Divisional Officer and it is only when warrant was issued against her that she appeared and deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- and sought time to deposit the remaining amount. The last order sheet that has been filed by the petitioner dated 13.7.2016 indicates that on that date no fresh warrant was issued against the petitioner nor was the date of validity of the warrant extended by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The aforesaid aspect indicates that the Sub-Divisional Officer is waiting for further steps to be taken by the petitioner and that he is also giving full opportunity to the petitioner of hearing but the petitioner is herself not appearing before him.

6. A perusal of the provisions of section 91 of the Act, and rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, indicates that any and every order passed by the Sub-Divisional Offic