Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 196 (MP)

Kashi Prasad Kevat v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2020-02-06

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2020
ORDER : Sanjay Dwivedi, J. 1. Shri Brajesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. 3. By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents whereby they have issued a notice to the petitioner on 31.05.2019 (Annexure-P/8) asking him to submit his reply as to why an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- be not recovered from him under the provisions of Section 92 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 [hereinafter 'the Adhiniyam, 1993']. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is assailing the said order mainly on the ground that the authority has not followed the mandatory requirement and not issued any notice to the petitioner under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and directly jumped to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- is to be recovered from him, whereas Section 89 provides as under:- "89. Liability of Panch etc. for loss, misappropriation. - (1) Every Panch, member, office- bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat [or Gram Nirman Samiti and Gram Vikas Samiti] [or committee of Gram Sabha] shall be personally liable for loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other' property of the Panchayat [or Gram Nirman Samiti and Gram Vikas Samiti] [or committee of Gram Sabha] to which he has been a party or which has been caused by him by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties. The amount required for reimbursing such loss, waste, or misapplication shall be recovered by the prescribed authority: Provided that no recovery shall be made under this section unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) If the person concerned fails to pay the amount, such amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and credited to the funds of the Panchayat [or Gram Nirman Samiti and Gram Vikas Samiti] [or committee of Gram Sabha] concerned." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on this point, this Court in the case of Roshan Nargave and another v. State of MP. and others reported in 2017 (3) MPLJ 73 , has held that the authority cannot proceed under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 unless the requirement of Section 89 is fulfilled. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on this point, this Court in the case of Roshan Nargave and another v. State of MP. and others reported in 2017 (3) MPLJ 73 , has held that the authority cannot proceed under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 unless the requirement of Section 89 is fulfilled. 6. Apparently, there is no notice issued by the authority under Section 89 and that indicates that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity to submit reply to the irregularity alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, therefore, determination under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, by the authority is not proper. 7. In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 31.05.2019 (Annexure-P/8) is set-aside. The authority is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and if they so desire after following the mandatory requirement of Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. 8. With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules.