A fair hearing, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, is essential for ensuring justice in administrative decisions affecting individuals.

1. By this petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.6.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, District - Ujjain, by which learned Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was a Sarpanch for the village Kelukheda, Janpad Panchayat, Alot and resident of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Some of the person has made a complaint to the Collector Ratlam that the petitioner along with the Secretary Shivlal Parmar has purchased some material of Rs. 7,59,000/- and there was signature of 19 beneficiaries on the record whereas only 2 beneficiaries has received the benefit. The notices were issued to the petitioner as well as the Secretary and subsequently by the order dated 7.11.2017 the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch. Against the said the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Executive Officer, Jilla Panchayat, Ratlam along with an application for stay. On 26.6.2018, the respondent has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner without even considering the grounds taken in the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the entire enquiry was conducted behind back of the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity to cross - examine the witness. In the absence of the cross - examination the charges on the petitioner cannot be said to be proved. He further submitted that all the beneficiaries have affixed their photos and also signed over the receiving when the material was given to them. Now they have been turned from the said point and their version is changed. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order passed by this Court in the case of Kailash Kumar Dangi vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 1999(2) JLJ 280 : (2000 A I H C 1033 (MP)).

4. The respondents have filed their reply and in the reply they have stated that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the State Government. A complaint was filed against the petitioner along with the Secretary of Jila Panchayat alleging that an amount of Rs.7,59,000/- was granted to the petitioner for construction of toilets for 75 beneficiaries, but the record of the Gram Panchayat, it reveals that there was signature of 19 beneficiaries whereas only 2 beneficiaries have received the benefit. After perusal it was found that the amount has been paid only 2 beneficiaries. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpat, Alot and on the basis of the said enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Upon completion of the investigation, it is found that the present petitioner as well as the Secretary Shivlal Parmar has misappropriated the amount of 5,64,000/- and, therefore, notice was issued to the petitioner and his Secretary for recovery of Rs.2,82,000/-. Thus, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the impugned order has been passed and, therefore, it does not call for any interference.

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

6. The petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of the village Kelukheda, Janpad Panchayat - Alot. A complaint was made against the petitioner along with his Secretary regarding misappropriation of the fund in the amount allotted to the petitioner for giving beneficiaries for construction of toilets. An enquiry was conducted and it was found that there was signature of 19 beneficiaries on the recor