MANISH YADAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dtd. 3/2/2023 passed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.2148 of 2020, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhaijipani, District Chhindwara. Certain irregularities were committed by the respondent No.8 on which the enquiry was initiated. A show cause notice dtd. 30/10/2019 was issued to the petitioner which was duly replied by the petitioner. Another show cause notice dtd. 21/11/2019 was issued which was also replied by the petitioner on 6/12/2019. Thereafter, the order dtd. 11/1/2020 has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In terms of Sec. 92 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1993") the petitioner was held guilty of defalcation of an amount of Rs.5,54,258.00 and the recovery was ordered against him. In pursuance to the same another order dtd. 13/1/2020 was passed exercising powers under Sec. 40 of the Act of 1993 and the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch.

(3.) It is his argument that in terms of Sec. 89 of the Act of 1993 without conducting any enquiry into the matter no order in terms of Sec. 92 of the Act of 1993 could have been passed. Merely issuance of a show cause notice is not sufficient to pass an order of recovery and subsequent termination of service. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by this court in several writ petitions he has prayed for quashment of the orders. The learned writ court considering the facts and circumstances of the case has arrived at the conclusion that the proceedings of termination in terms of Sec. 40 of the Act of 1993 were bad in law. Therefore, has quashed the order of termination of the petitioner. But as far as quashment of the recovery is concerned, has arrived to the conclusion that the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner reflects that the petitioner has only asked for a small relaxation to be granted to him as far as recovery is concerned. Virtually, the petitioner has admitted to his guilt and the writ petition was dismissed.