IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK th ON THE 5 OF APRIL, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 6572 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

SURESH SINGH RAJPUT S/O SHRI D.S. RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE AS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY AT PRESENT POSTED IN GRAM PANCHAYAT SANGWANMAL JANPAD PANCHAYAT KHRIKIYA DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI K.K. AGNIHOTRI - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE COLLECTOR HARDA DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PANCHAYAT HARDA DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD PANCHAYAT KHIRKIYA DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI LALIT JOGLEKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Signature Not Verified Heard on admission.

2. Present petition is preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being crestfallen by order dated 23.02.2023 (Annex.P/4)

passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat,Harda.

3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was working as Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat, Pipalyakhudia at the relevant point of time. One proposal was sanctioned for construction of road at Gram Panchayat, Pipaliyakhudia from Hardaul Baba to Gour Manglik Bhawan for a stretch of 150 meter RCC road. Rs.5,10,000/- was sanctioned on 22.1.2018. As per allegation, no construction was made and money to the tune of Rs.1,46,000/- was drawn by the petitioner and other functionaries. Therefore, proceedings for recovery was initiated under Section 92 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gam Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam" for short).

4. Show-cause notice under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam was issued to the petitioner and case was registered. Petitioner appeared and filed his reply. After due consideration, impugned order has been passed and petitioner was saddled with the liability of Rs.48,667/-, which is to be recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Therefore, principle of natural justice has been violated. He further referred reply filed by the petitioner in response to show-cause notice, copy of which is filed as Annexure P/3 and submitted that he was falsely implicated and no liability exists for the petitioner to discharge because at that time, he was transferred to some other place.

Signature Not Verified

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the basis of impugned order submits that petitioner was involved in financial embezzlement of public money therefore, after giving notice, impugned order has been passed. He prayed for dismissal of petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition.

8. This is a case where petitioner is taking exception to order dated 23.2.2023. Sheet-anchor of petitioner is that he was not given opportunity of hearing. From perusal of impugned order it appears that after issuance of show-cause notice, some of the incumbents did not appear but petitioner appeared and filed his reply. Therefore, contention of the petitioner is misplaced regarding denial of opportunity of hearing.

9. So far as submission regarding other aspect is concerned that he was not posted at the relevant point of time is not substantiated in specific terms by the petitioner in his reply (Annex.P/3). Said aspect has been considered by the authority in impugned order and specifically mentioned the role of petitioner in categorical terms. Once the role of petitioner is ascertained by the authorities and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, then compliance of Sections