SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(MP) 465

SHEEL NAGU, S.A.DHARMADHIKARI
Narendra Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Gaurav Mishra for appellant;
Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for respondents/State.

JUDGMENT

Nagu, J. -- 1. Both these writ appeals involving common questions of law and based on more or less similar foundational facts have been heard together and are decided by this common order.

1.1 At the very outset it is pertinent to mention that the only difference between the two appeals is that in Writ Appeal No.359/16 the basic impugned show cause notice before the writ Court had not been responded to by way of reply while in Writ Appeal No.294/2016 the petitioner appellant has filed reply to impugned show cause notice. Moreso Writ Appeal No.359/2016 is by a former Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat whereas Writ Appeal No.294/2016 is by a former Secretary of Gram Panchayat.

2. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the challenge to the show cause notice issued under section 92(1)(4) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity Adhiniyam of 1993) calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why the appellants be not sent to civil jail for indulging in embezzlement of funds arising out of the fact that work of only Rs.50,000/- has been certified by the Sub- Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Dabra as against the sanctioned amount of Rs.4,40,800/- thereby leaving an







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top