1 2025:CGHC:46307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3027 of 2023 1 - Vitul Sidar S/o Injor Sidar Aged About 39 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Panchayat Secretary Posted At Gram Panchayat Shradhapath Bagicha Janpad- Panchayat- Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Program Co- Ordinary /collector Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P/1 dated 07.11.2022, the present writ petition has been filed. Vide the impugned order, the respondent No.3 has issued a recovery order against the petitioner for an amount of Rs.4,36,197/-. The said recovery is towards the inflated measurements and the bills prepared at the behest of the petitioner who was a Technical Assistant working under Gram Panchayat, Kamarima, Janpad Panchayat, Bagicha, District Jashpur, under the MNREGA scheme. 2. The allegations in the recovery notice is that of the inflated measurements of the Wells which were got dug up under the MNREGA scheme in the said Gram Panchayat at different places. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that first of all there has been no enquiry, as such conducted by the respondents before issuing the order of penalty. He further submits that there is a considerable period of time which has lapsed from the time the work stood executed by the petitioner and the time when the physical measurements of the same were taken. According to the petitioner, in between there was also, if not two, at least one Monsoon which has underwent and which would also lead to the differences in the measurement if taken subsequently. These facts have been stated by the petitioner in his reply, but has not been 3 considered by the authorities while passing the impugned order. He further submits that no enquiry as such has been conducted by the respondents before the impugned order of recovery was passed. 4. The State counsel on the other hand submits that from the records it appears that there was enquiry done. Physical verification was also done. In the physical verification the measurement of the Wells which were got measured earlier by the petitioner was found to be much inflated. The bills have been raised at the inflated measurement, thus causing loss to the State Exchequer. Therefore it cannot be said firstly that the order is in violation of natural justice, as show cause notice was already issued and secondly it cannot be said to be an order without proper physical verification as physical verification has also got done. 5. Be that as it may, considering the nature of dispute that the petitioner has, and also considering the fact that the period of work done being 2019 and the inspection being done in April 2021 and March, 2022 which means that atleast two Monsoon seasons have gone in between. Because of the rainwater flowing into the wells the measurement of a well dug in the year 2019 will get definitely changed. This aspect has not been dealt with by the authorities concerned while passing the impugned order. There is no proper explanation provided in the records also while dealing with the said issues and circumstances which arose by efflux of 4 time and because of the weather conditions that have gone in between. 6. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the writ petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the State authorities, particularly the respondents No.3&4 in ensuring that an enquiry be got done and while conducting the enquriy fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and defence be given to the petitioner. The authorities concerned would also take note of the effect of the two Monsoon seasons that have gone in between. 7. Let the entire exercise be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Meanwhile, the respondents are directed/restrained from enforcing the impugned order of recovery dated 07.11.2022. The need for execution of the order Annexure P/1 may arise if at all if it requires after the findings of the fresh enquiry. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena