ORDER

Assailing the order dated 17.08.2020 (Annexure P/1) by the respondent No.4 directing the petitioner to deposit his share out of the total sum of Rs.15,46,226/-, the present petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was serving as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Dhangawan Purvi, Janpad Panchayat Jaithari, District Anuppur. Certain work of construction of PCC Road, Gravel road and Shanti Dham was taken up by the Gram Panchayat. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat issued ensured that the work was done in accordance with the technical approval and according to the layout given by the Sub Engineer and by following the technical guidelines. The payment was made on the basis of the valuation carried out by the Sub Engineering and physical verification of the work by the Assistant Engineer. On 17.08.2020, the petitioner received a notice that several irregularities have been committed in construction of PCC Road and other internal works and an amount of Rs.14.99 Lakhs was illegally withdrawn. An enquiry was conducted by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service under the orders of the respondent No.2 and illegal withdrawal of Rs.13,17,414/- has been found. On the basis of the complaint made by one Shri Rathore regarding construction of Mukti Dham, Rs.2,28,812/- has been illegally withdrawn out of Rs.14.97 Lakhs. Thus out of total Rs.60,52,600/-, Rs.15,46,226/- has been misused. The impugned order shows that a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause and for personal hearing, but neither the petitioner attended the personal hearing nor any reply was filed by him. Thereafter, the impugned order asking the petitioner to deposit his share out of total Rs.15,46,226/- has been passed.

3. It is argued that the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1993') are applicable to the case of the petitioner, however, provisions of Section 92 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 cannot be directly applied looking to the circumstances of the present case. The enquiry which has been conducted is behind the back of the petitioner and without providing any opportunity of hearing. No copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. A similar aspect came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Seema vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.5053 of 2017 (s)) wherein vide order dated 20.08.2019, this Court placing reliance upon the several judgments has quashed the similar impugned notice on the ground that the procedure as contemplated under Sections 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 has not been followed and the petition was allowed. It is argued that the controversy involved herein is identical to that in the case of Seema (supra). Therefore, a prayer is made to quash the impugned order in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Seema (supra).

4. The learned counsel for the respondents though by filing a reply to the petition has tried to justify their stand, but he fairly submits that the matter is squarely covered by the order passed by this court in the case of Seema (supra). He further contends that this Court has granted a liberty to the respondents/State to take appropriate steps considering the provisions of Sections 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam of 1993. The same liberty be extended to the respondents/State herein also.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The fact remains that the provisions of Sections 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 have not been followed in the present case and the petitioner has been asked to deposit his share in pursuance to the show cause notice issued to him on 17.08.2020.

7. This Court has considered the similar aspect of the matter in the case of Seema (supra) and relying on several judgments has held as under:- "5. From perusal of record it is seen that, petitioner is an elected as Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat Kheda Mevda. There was no electrification in the