Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1253 (MP)

Kaushal Kishor Yadav v. State of M. P.

2017-12-11

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2017
ORDER 1. In the present case, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 7.10.2017 (Annexure P-3) which is actually a letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lakhnadon whereby referring to complaint made by the villagers, ex-parte enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and on the basis of the same, it was found that he was involved in misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 22,85,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is elected as Up-Sarpanch and was carrying out the charge of Sarpanch from 24.4.2017 to 8.6.2017. During this period, it is alleged that the petitioner along with one Sant Kumar Yadav, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, was responsible for withdrawal of certain amounts related to construction of three C.C. Roads, but the construction did not commence despite the amount was withdrawn. Similarly, other allegations were also made against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that aforesaid order/ letter was issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner despite the fact that a favourable report has been submitted by the Assistant Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Lakhnadon whereby the said Assistant Engineer has submitted that the material purchased by the petitioner was found on the spot. It is further submitted by the petitioner that certain allegations were made against the petitioner in respect of items No. 1 to 6 of para 2 of the impugned order which do not relate to the petitioner's tenure but without considering the aforesaid aspect, the SHO, Dhuma has been directed to register FIR against the petitioner and thus, the petitioner has prayed for the quashment of the aforesaid order. 4. On the other hand, learned P.L. for the respondents has submitted that the inquiry was conducted by the committee of Gram Panchayat wherein prima facie certain illegalities and irregularities have been found against the petitioner hence no error can be attributed to the action of the respondents. 5. Learned P.L. has further submitted that the petitioner was also given an opportunity of hearing as vide letter 29.8.2017 he was also asked to produce the record. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 5. Learned P.L. has further submitted that the petitioner was also given an opportunity of hearing as vide letter 29.8.2017 he was also asked to produce the record. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the record it is apparent that the impugned order/letter has been issued to the SHO to lodge FIR against the petitioner on the allegation of misappropriation of funds despite the fact that the Assistant Engineer has already given a favourable report and despite the fact that according to the petitioner, he was not responsible for the period as mentioned in para 2 of the impugned letter but without considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. In the considered opinion of this Court, lodging of FIR is a serious matter affecting the life and liberty of a person guaranteed under the Constitution and before passing such an order, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioner especially when Assistant Engineer of the same Gram Panchayat has given report in favour of the petitioner and others and misappropriation relates to a different period as alleged by the petitioner. 8. Under these circumstances, the impugned order/letter dated 7.10.2017 (Annexure P-3) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.