RELKI BAI Vs. PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 19/03/2019, 09/02/2018 and 26/11/2015 passed by respondents no. 2 , 3 and 4 respectively thereby, the petitioner was declared disqualified for contesting the election for a period of six years as well as recovery of Rs. 7,19,000/- has been ordered to be made from the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat - Jalgon in the year 2010 and her tenure was upto February 2015. After the tenure of the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent no. 4 on 09/09/2015 under sections 40 and 90 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 ( hereinafter referred to " the Adhiniyam"). The said notice was addressed to the petitioner as well as the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. In the notice, it has been alleged that during execution of Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan Scheme, several financial irregularities were being committed by the petitioner and the Secretary and therefore, an amount of Rs. 7,19,000/- is recoverable from the petitioner and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat submitted a joint reply to the above show-cause notice on 23/09/2015 denying the allegations levelled in the notice. After receiving the reply from the petitioner, no further enquiry has been conducted by the respondents as contemplated under section 40, 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam and the impugned order/s dated 26/11/2015 has been passed by respondent no. 4. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Collector, Badwani, but the same was rejected vide order dated 09/02/2018. Against which, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore, which has also been rejected, hence the present writ petition before this court has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned orders are in violation of principle of natural justice. No enquiry as contemplated under section 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam has been conducted by the petitioner. There is no adjudication by the respondent/s for holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. Even the reply submitted by the petitoiner has not been considered by the respondent/s. The letter dated 12/12/2014, on the basis of which, the show cause notice has been issued, has not been supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that vide impugned order Annexure-P/3, the petitioner was disqualified for contesting the election, but no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He further submits that the amount of recovery has been deposited by the petitioner, but the same is refundable to the petitioner because before determination of the amount of recovery, there is no adjudication regarding the fact, whether the petitioner is liable to pay the amount. He submits that at the time, the petitioner deposited the amount, appeal was pending before the Competent Authority, therefore, the amount deposited by the petitioner was under protest subject to decision of the appeal. In light of the aforesaid, impugned orders be set aside and the petitioner be allowed. For the sake of reference, he has relied upon the order/judgment passed by this Court in the case of Narendra Pandey Vs. State of M.P and others reported in 2017(3) MPLJ, 384, Manita Jaiwar Vs. State of M.P and others reported in 2009(3) MPHT 70 and Gendalal S/o Bhikaji Vs. State of M.P and others reported in 2006(3) MPLJ 360