ORDER : 1. This Writ Appeal filed under Section 2(A) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the order dated 03.02.2021, whereby the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. Drapped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the appellant was working as Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat, Dethli Bujurg. The appellant submitted a complain on 18.12.2013 (Annexure-P/6) before the Collector for conducting an inquiry regarding irregularity of work in the said Panchayat. The appellant preferred yet another complain of similar nature before the Commissioner on 06.10.2017 (Annexure-P/8). A Fact Finding Inquiry was conducted by Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jila Panchayat, Mandsaur. He submitted report of fact finding inquiry on 06.11.2017 (Annexure-P/2). By communication dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure-P/7), the CEO directed the appellant to remain present for recording statement on her complain. In turn, appellant's statement was recorded on 14.11.2017 (Annexure-R/1). Thereafter, on 01.12.2017 (Annexure-R/2), the CEO issued a show-cause notice to the appellant. The appellant filed her reply on 21.12.2017 (Annexure-P/9). The CEO again issued another notice of similar nature on 21.12.2017 (Annexure-R/2). The appellant again filed her response on 04.01.2018 (Annexure-P/9). Interestingly, two more show-cause notices of similar nature were issued on 19.02.2018 and 15.03.2018 (cumulatively marked as Annexure-R/2). 3. In purported exercise of power under Section 92 of the Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Adhiniyam), the CEO passed the order dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure-P/3) and imposed a recovery of Rs. 10,10,980/- on the appellant. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged this order before the learned Commissioner who dismissed her appeal on 08.06.2020 (Annexure-P/1). 4. The CEO issued yet another show-cause notice under Section 92(2) of the Adhiniyam on 22.09.2020 (Annexure-P/12). The appellant filed her reply on 25.09.2020 (Annexure-P/13). The order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the CEO., Jila Panchayat and appellate order dated 08.06.2020 were called in question before the learned Single Judge. 5. Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that (i) the appellant herself prayed for conducting an inquiry. The inquiry report dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure-P/2) was prepared prior in time than the show-cause notices which were issued subsequently. Along with show-cause notices, inquiry report (Annexure-P/2) was not supplied to the appellant. (ii) The inquiry report is in fact a 'fact finding inquiry' report. Before preparation of this report, the appellant was not informed about the nature of allegations/charge against her. Along with show-cause notices, inquiry report (Annexure-P/2) was not supplied to the appellant. (ii) The inquiry report is in fact a 'fact finding inquiry' report. Before preparation of this report, the appellant was not informed about the nature of allegations/charge against her. Hence, this report prepared behind the back of the appellant and without informing her about the nature of allegations, cannot be used to hold the petitioner as guilty. 6. In the final order dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure-P/3), the appellant's replies aforesaid were not considered at all. The final order is based on the inquiry report (Annexure-P/2) which was prepared without putting the appellant to notice with specific allegations. The impugned orders are not reasoned orders. The decision making process adopted by the respondents are contrary to principal of natural justice. 7. Learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand supported the order of learned Single Judge. 8. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. 9. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 10. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge gave following findings:- "7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was Surpanch of Gram Panchayat for the period of 5 years commencing from January 2010 to December 2014 and during this period Lalchand Bhaskar was the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Undisputedly during this period, funds were sanctioned for construction of 75 toilets out of which only 10 toilets were constructed. Complaints were received by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat that the petitioner and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat have misappropriated the funds and did constructed 65 toilets under the Panch Parmeshwar Yojna and Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan and there is misappropriation of Rs. 7,08,236/- under the Panch Parmeshwar Yojna. A complaint was made on 18.12.2013 and inquiry was got conducted and the report was submitted. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the complaint to the Commissioner on 3.10.2017 and requested for impartial investigation in the matter. Therefore, the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Mandsaur Shri P.S. Mandoria was given the task of reinvestigating the matter. He issued notice to the petitioner, Secretary and petitioner's husband. They all appeared before the CEO and recorded their statements. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the complaint to the Commissioner on 3.10.2017 and requested for impartial investigation in the matter. Therefore, the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Mandsaur Shri P.S. Mandoria was given the task of reinvestigating the matter. He issued notice to the petitioner, Secretary and petitioner's husband. They all appeared before the CEO and recorded their statements. In order to corroborate the allegation made in the complaint, the CEO sought elucidation from State Bank of India, Khadavda Branch, Central Bank of India, Garoth and Shamgarh Branch and as per reply given by the Branch Managers of the aforesaid Banks that all the amounts were withdrawn through cheques signed jointly by the Secretary and the Surpanch. Their signatures were verified from specimen signatures available with the Bank. Therefore, it is not in dispute that amount of Rs. 10,08,980/- was withdrawn by the joint signatures of the petitioner and the Secretary and loss has been caused to the Government. 8. The sole contention raised by the petitioner in challenging the impugned orders is that no inquiry was conducted under section 89 of the Adhiniyam and directly the order has been passed under section 92 of the Adhiniyam. The aforesaid argument has no substance because twice the inquiries were conducted by the competent authority. On a request made by the petitioner, the CEO, Zila Panchayat has conducted the detailed inquiry in which opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, her statement was recorded and statement of her husband and the Secretary were also recorded. An inquiry from the Banks was also made. Therefore, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat submitted the report and thereafter proceedings under section 92 of the Adhiniyam were initiated against the petitioner by issuing several show-cause notices and as per the record, despite receipt of the notice, the petitioner only submitted the reply but did not appear on 21.12.2017, 23.1.2018, 8.3.2018 and 27.3.2018. Therefore, on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, - Dr Pankaj Jain has passed the impugned order. The petitioner is not assailing the impugned orders on the merits, but only making allegations against the Secretary that he has withdrawn the amount from the bank account by forging her signatures. She has failed to establish the same before the competent authority. The petitioner is not assailing the impugned orders on the merits, but only making allegations against the Secretary that he has withdrawn the amount from the bank account by forging her signatures. She has failed to establish the same before the competent authority. No FIR was lodged by the petitioner about forging of her signatures. In fact, petitioner was not involved in the day to day work of the Panchayat and her husband (Surpanch Pati) -Nanalal Patidar used to work with the Secretary which is also against the provisions of the Adhiniyam. The reservations to the women candidate are made in the Panchayats election in order to give a proper representation of women in the Gram Panchayat, but they are being deprived of to work by their relatives like husband, father, brothers etc. There is the compliance of Section 89 of the Adhiniyam because the inquiry was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat who is a competent authority to take action under section 92 of the Adhiniyam and thereafter, final order has also been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed." (emphasis supplied) 11. In nut shell the learned Single Judge has declined interference in the writ petition on following reasons:- (i) On the complaint of petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and report was submitted; (ii) The CEO Jilla Panchayat issued notices to the petitioner, Secretary and petitioner's husband and they appeared and their statements were recorded in the said enquiry. (iii) The CEO obtained report from SBI, Central Bank of India regarding withdrawal of amounts etc; (iv) In the aforesaid preliminary enquiry, opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Hence, there was no violation of principles of natural justice. (v) The petitioner although filed reply to the show cause notices did not appear on four dates. Decision taken by CEO on the basis of report submitted by the CEO, Jilla Panchayat is not bad in law. (vi) Petitioner was not involved in the day-to-day work of panchayat and her husband used to work with the Secretary which is also against the provisions of Adhiniyam. Decision taken by CEO on the basis of report submitted by the CEO, Jilla Panchayat is not bad in law. (vi) Petitioner was not involved in the day-to-day work of panchayat and her husband used to work with the Secretary which is also against the provisions of Adhiniyam. (vii) Requirement of Sec. 89 and Sec. 92 of Adhiniyam were taken care of by the authorities below. 12. The proviso to Sec. 89(1) of Adhiniyam makes it clear that no recovery can be made under this Section unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Sub-section (4) of Sec. 92 is also couched in a mandatory language which makes it obligatory that no action under sub-section 1, 2 or 3 of Sec. 92 can be taken unless a reasonable opportunity is given to the person concerned to show cause why such action should not be taken against him. Pertinently in both the aforesaid Sections the law makers have chosen to insert the expression "unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to the person concerned". The core issue before the writ court was that whether "reasonable opportunity" has been granted to the petitioner or not. Thus, in nut shell, it was decision making process adopted by the respondent which was subject matter of judicial scrutiny. 13. The learned Single Judge was impressed with the enquiry report and since statement of petitioner was recorded in this enquiry, it was held that principles of natural justice were satisfied. Interestingly, this enquiry report was prepared on 6/11/2017. Till preparation of this preliminary enquiry report, the petitioner was not put to notice by the respondents. The said enquiry report was outcome of a complaint preferred by the petitioner herself. A conjoint reading of Sec. 89 and 92 makes it clear that petitioner was required to be noticed as to why a particular action should not be taken against her. The enquiry report was at best a "fact finding report" on the strength of which show cause notices could have been issued. But the enquiry which was conducted before issuance of show cause notice does not fulfill the requirement of principles of natural justice. The enquiry report was at best a "fact finding report" on the strength of which show cause notices could have been issued. But the enquiry which was conducted before issuance of show cause notice does not fulfill the requirement of principles of natural justice. Had it been a case where petitioner was put to show cause notice by making it clear to her about the nature of allegations and then her response was received and then enquiry would have been conducted, the matter would have been different. In that case, the petitioner would have been made aware about the specific nature of allegations alleged against her. In that case, she would have been in a position to defend herself by filing reply, by taking a definite stand in the enquiry and if permitted, cross examine the witnesses who were introduced against her. In the instant case, this was not the situation. At the cost of repetition, the enquiry in the nature of fact finding enquiry on the complaint of petitioner was conducted. Thus, petitioner had no knowledge about any kind of allegations/charge/accusation against her. Hence, there was no question of defending herself in the enquiry. 14. This Court in Radheshyam Kochak s/o Jagannath Kochak v. State of M.P. decided on 20-10-2016 [2016 MPLJ Online 52 which was followed in Kadam Singh v. CEO, (2019) 1 MP LJ 420 has considered the ambit and scope of Sec. 89 and 92 and opined as under:- "10. From bare perusal of section 89 it is clear that every Panch, member, office-bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat shall be personally liable for the loss, waste or misappropriation of any money or other property of the Panchayat to which he has been a party or which has been caused by him by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties. The said amount is liable to be recovered by the prescribed authority. As per the proviso to this section no recovery shall be made under this section unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The said amount is liable to be recovered by the prescribed authority. As per the proviso to this section no recovery shall be made under this section unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. That every Panch, member, office-bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat may be existing or ex or removed who has caused loss to the Panchayat by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties and required for reimbursing such loss, waste or misapplication and same can be recovered even after demitting office by them, as the case may be. The section 89 specifically provides that an adjudication must be done and as per the proviso reasonable opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to those persons. In the present case there is no such adjudication under section 89 of the Act. 11. After adjudication under section 89, section 92 gives power to prescribed authority to recover the records, articles and money belonging to the Panchayat from the custody of any person. Under sub-section (2) of section 92 if any person fails or refuses to deliver the record or article or pay the money then the prescribed authority may apprehend him with a warrant for sending him to civil jail and under sub-section (3) may recover such money as arrears of land revenue. As such under section 92 powers are given to the prescribed authority for execution of the order passed under section 89. In the present case there is no adjudication under section 89, therefore, there cannot be any execution proceeding or order passed therein under section 92 of the Act. The prescribed authority has straight away on the basis of ex parte enquiry report initiated recovery under section 92. In view of the above, the impugned show cause notice as well as the final order dated 8-10-2015 are hereby set aside. Needless to say that still respondents/authority shall be at liberty to take prompt action against the petitioner under section 89 and 92 of the Panchayat Act." (emphasis supplied) 15. In the case of Kadam Singh (supra) also the prescribed authority on the basis of ex-parte report initiated action against the petitioner. In the instant case, although petitioner participated in the enquiry, she had no knowledge that she is an accused in the said enquiry. Show cause notices were issued after conclusion of this enquiry. In the case of Kadam Singh (supra) also the prescribed authority on the basis of ex-parte report initiated action against the petitioner. In the instant case, although petitioner participated in the enquiry, she had no knowledge that she is an accused in the said enquiry. Show cause notices were issued after conclusion of this enquiry. Thus, if we give stamp of approval to this enquiry which was conducted before issuance of show cause notice and before informing the petitioner what are the allegations against her, it will be like putting the cart before the horse. The principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to be reduced to this level otherwise the said principles will become an empty formality or like an artificial public relation exercise. 16. When petitioner was put to notice along with enquiry report and petitioner submitted her reply, the minimum expectation as per Sec. 89 and 92 of Adhiniyam was that an adjudication would be done by providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. If reply of petitioner was already on record, the prescribed authority was obliged to examine the defence of the petitioner. It was open to him to assign justifiable reasons to discard the defence taken by the petitioner, but it was no more open to the said authority to totally ignore the reply, not take cognizance of said reply and jump to the conclusion on the basis of material collected by him behind the back of petitioner. 17. In Narendra Pandey Vs. State of MP & Ors., 2017 (3) MPLJ 384 a division bench (Gwalior) of this Court opined as under:- "5.6. The abovesaid interpretation of section 92, best serves the object behind this provision and also ensures strict adherence to the principle of natural justice of reasonable opportunity. Such cautious approach is all the more necessary since passing of an order under section 92(1) or (2) or (3) attracts disqualification from contesting panchayat elections for a period of six (6) years. 5.7. Such cautious approach is all the more necessary since passing of an order under section 92(1) or (2) or (3) attracts disqualification from contesting panchayat elections for a period of six (6) years. 5.7. Pertinently the requirement of 'reasonable opportunity' in section 92(4) would suffice in case summary enquiry is held where the fundamentals of 'reasonable opportunity' are adhered to, which can be summarized as follows:- (a) Intimating the person concerned by means of show cause notice in writing under section 92(1) that he is in possession of the money/article/record belonging to Panchayat and that the said possession be restored back to Panchayat within a reasonable period of time. This notice under section 92(1) of Adhiniyam of 1993 should not contain insinuating recital of allegation, prosecution, stigma, punishment, character assassination, derisive remark, etc; (b) The abovesaid show cause notice in writing should be served on the person concerned by modes prescribed by law under the 1993 Adhiniyam and Rules framed thereunder; (c) reasonable time period depending upon attending facts and circumstances should be afforded to the noticee to respond to the abovesaid show cause notice under section 92(1) of Adhiniyam of 1993; (d) in case the noticee denies the nature of possession to be unauthorized and demands supportive material which was considered by the prescribed authority while forming opinion under section 92(1)of Adhiniyam of 1993 in regard to the possession being unlawful, the said incriminating material shall be supplied to enable the noticee to submit reply; (e) thereafter on receipt of the reply or failure to file the same, the prescribed authority shall then record its satisfaction by passing a speaking order, that the possession of record/article/money held by the noticee, is unauthorized. This speaking order containing this satisfaction arrived at about unauthorized possession should form part of fresh show cause notice issued to the noticee under section 92(2) or 92(3) r/w section 92(4) directing the noticee to return the record/article/money belonging to the Panchayat within reasonable period of time failing which any or both of the coercive steps of sending the noticee to civil jail or/and recover the money as arrears of land revenue and in case of record/article by appropriate mode prescribed under Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would be taken; (f) in case within reasonable period provided in (e) (supra) the record/article/money is not returned to the Panchayat the prescribed authority shall then be free to adopt the coercive methods under section 92(2) or/and under section 92(3) to ensure recovery of possession of record/article/money." (emphasis supplied) 18. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by Gwalior Bench in Narendra (supra). Since reply of petitioner was duly received, the prescribed authority was under an obligation to consider it by passing a reasoned and speaking order. If impugned order dated 6/4/2018 is examined minutely, it will be clear like noon day that there is no iota of mention and discussion about the reply of the petitioner. Thus, decision making process adopted by the Department is not in conformity with statutory mandate of Sec. 89 and 92 of Adhiniyam and principles of natural justice. 19. The apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that reasons are heart beat of conclusions. In absence of reasons conclusions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The Apex Court emphasised the need of assigning reasons as under:- "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process". (emphasis supplied) 20. This is trite that the soul of natural justice is "fair play in action". In one case, it has been defined as "quintessence of the process of justice inspired and guided by "fair play in action". AIR 1978 SC 597 , Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India. In another case, it is described "as a distillate of due process of law". The Apex Court held that in absence of notice "hearing becomes hollow, the right becomes a ritual". See (1978) 1 SCC 405 Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Officer. 21. The writ court has dismissed the petition on yet another ground, namely, petitioner was not involved in the day-to-day work of panchayat. Indeed, her husband used to work with the Secretary which is against the provisions of the Adhiniyam. A microscopic reading of show cause notices issued to the petitioner shows that this was not the allegation against the petitioner. The Apex Court in Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Nand Kishore Singh, AIR 1957 SC 7 opined as under:- "18. The charge-sheet which was furnished by the appellant to the respondent formed the basis of the enquiry which was held by the General Manager and the appellant could not be allowed to justify its action on any other grounds than those contained in the charge-sheet" (emphasis supplied) 22. The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that one cannot be punished for an allegation which was not subject matter of charge sheet/show cause notice. Thus, for this reason also, we are unable to agree with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 23. To sum up, in our view, the fact finding enquiry conducted by CEO before issuance of notices in which petitioner participated does not mean that a reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. Thus, for this reason also, we are unable to agree with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 23. To sum up, in our view, the fact finding enquiry conducted by CEO before issuance of notices in which petitioner participated does not mean that a reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. There has been no application of mind and adjudication on the reply submitted by the petitioner. Thus, decision making process adopted by the respondents hits principles of natural justice and statutory mandate of Sec. 89 and 92 of the Act. 24. In view of foregoing discussion, the impugned order of learned Single Judge dated 3/2/2021 and orders of CEO dated 6/4/2018 and order of appellate authority dated 8/6/2020 cannot be upheld. Resultantly, all the said orders are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the Department to proceed against the petitioner from the stage her reply was received by the respondents. 25. The Writ Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.