ORDER

Assailing the notice dated 06/02/2020 (Annexure P/4) this petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rampur, Janpad Panchayat Naigarhi District Rewa. It is contended by the counsel that on account of allegation of misappropriation pertaining to various work which were under taken in terms of the directives of the Rojgar Guarantee Council, the petitioner has been issued a show cause dated 06/02/2020 (Annexure P/4). It is contended by the counsel that Annexure P/4 as per the recital thereof, has been issued under Section 40(2) and 92 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avem Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam of 1993" for the sake of brevity).

3. It is contended by the counsel that by the impugned notice/order the petitioner is being called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.2,67,645/- which according to the respondents, misappropriated by the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that as the petitioner is being directly called upon to deposit the amount, therefore, without awaiting reply of the petitioner, liability has been fastened against the petitioner and accordingly the show case notice is unsustainable. It is further contended by the counsel that before issuing notice under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, the requirements as stipulated under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 are required to be adhered to. Whereas in the present case the respondents have not initiated any proceedings under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and directly a notice under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 has been issued and therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in WP No.2273/2020 (Rajjan Choudhary vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.) as well as decision of this Court in Roshan Nargave & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in (2017) 3 MPLJ 73 , the impugned show cause deserve to be quashed.

4. It is further contended by the counsel that the impugned show cause notice is composite one inasmuch as the same has been issued under Section 40 as well as 92 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 and as per Section 40 there is threat to declare the petitioner disqualified for a period of 6 years from contesting any of the election of the Panchayat and by the same notice the petitioner has been called upon to deposit Rs.2,67,645/- and simultaneously is being called upon to submit the reply also. It is contended by the counsel that once the respondent has already decided that the petitioner has to deposit the said amount, the issuance of notice is an exercise in futility and therefore, the adjudication has already been done even without considering the proposed stand of the petitioner. Accordingly, submits that in view of the order of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in WP No.5772/2016 , the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in pursuance of directives in a public interest litigation, the action impugned has been taken by the respondents and as the petitioner was found guilty of misappropriation of the amount inasmuch as on account of the petitioner lapses, various work under the Rozgar Guarantee were hindered thereby causing loss to the public exchequer. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner then called upon to submit a reply to notice issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam 1993 as well as under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned notice dated 16/02/2020 (Annexure P/4) and therefore, no interference is required.

6. Heard rival submission and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 06/02/2020 (Annexure P/4) reflects that the same has been issued to the petitioner under Section 40 (2) and under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and in terms of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, the petitioner has been called upon to show c