V K SHUKLA Vs. R P TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa in case no. 230/Nigrani/2011-12 whereby the order of the removal of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chhatauli, Janpad Panchayat Waidhan District Singrouli under section 40 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Act") has been affirmed.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner is a duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chhatauli, Janpad Panchayat Waidhan District Singrouli. Initially proceedings under section 92 of the Act were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of dues which culminated in passing of the order dated 08.08.2012 by the Collector, Singrouli in which it was held that the petitioner along with the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and the concerned Sub-Engineer were held equally liable for misappropriation of Rs.1,97,000/- as well as certain other amounts regarding payment made in the muster roll etc. which was directed to be computed and recovered from them. Subsequent to the aforesaid order under section 92 of the Act, the respondent no. 5 filed an application for initiating proceedings under section 40 of the Act against the petitioner on 13.09.2011. Pursuant to which notices were issued to the petitioner for her appearance before the Sub Divisional Officer, Singrouli on 03.10.2011. The petitioner instead of filing a reply or response to the notice, submitted an application under section 11 of the C.P.C. raising objections to the effect that in view of the order passed under section 92 of the Act, initiation of the proceedings under section 40 on the same issue was not permissible and on that count prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition on the ground that the respondents/authorities were required to follow the entire detailed procedure prescribed under section 40 of the Act and conduct an enquiry and record a finding as to why the petitioner deserves to be removed as Sarpanch before passing the impugned order but the concerned authority instead of doing so, has removed the petitioner who is an elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Chhatauli, Janpad Panchayat Waidhan District Singrouli only on the ground that the order under section 92 of the Act has been passed by the authority wherein a finding to the effect that the petitioner has misappropriated certain amount of money, has been recorded. It is submitted that the procedure adopted by the respondents/authorities amounts to denial of the right to show cause as prescribed and provided by section 40 of the Act, therefore, deserves to be set aside.