1 2025:CGHC:45426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3031 of 2023 1 - Yogendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late D. P. Sahu Aged About 38 Years Presently Posted As Sub-Engineer Janpad Panchayat Ambagarh Chowki, District : Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Mohala- Manpur Ambagarh Chowki, District : Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer (C. E. O.) Jila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mohla, District : Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - The Chief Executive Officer (C. E. O.) Janpad Panchayat Ambagarh Chowki, District : Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/09/2025 1. The petitioner by way of this petition challenging the orders of recovery dated 21.8.2017 and 22.8.2017 passed by respondent No. 5 by which a sum of Rs. 42,411/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner that too without providing any opportunity of hearing. In a social audit meeting conducted under Gram Panchayat in the year 2015-16 some audit report has been submitted according to which a sum of Rs. 84,823/- was found to be recoverable from the concerned authorities. The aforesaid amount was directed to be recovered from the petitioner as well as Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioner submitted representation stating that the work has already been completed, however, no inspection has been conducted by the competent authority and thereafter the work has been inspected behind the back of the petitioner in which alleged recovery was made against the petitioner and the concerned SDO. According to MGNREGA Act 3 the performance of work done is required to be inspected in presence of the person concerned however, in the present matter it has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner as such the impugned recovery order is perse illegal. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. To quash/set-aside the order dated 21/08/2017 passed by the respondent authorities. ii. To quash/set-aside the order dated 22/08/2017 passed by the respondent authorities. iii. To direct respondent authorities to decide the applications which is pending before the authorities of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court finds deem fit in the case of the petitioner. iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the social audit report and subsequent inspection of the construction work were conducted without the petitioner’s knowledge or presence, which is a clear violation of the specific procedural safeguards mandated under the MGNREGA Act. The Act explicitly requires that any inspection of work must be carried out in the presence of 4 the concerned individual to ensure transparency and fairness. In this case, however, the inspection was carried out behind the petitioner’s back, denying him the opportunity to be heard or to address any alleged discrepancies at the time of inspection. It was further argued that if any anomalies or defects were identified during the inspection, the petitioner should have been formally informed of these findings as part of the defect notice issuance process, allowing him a chance to respond or rectify the issues. Instead, without any prior communication or opportunity for hearing, a recovery notice was abruptly issued, holding both the petitioner and the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) liable for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 42,411/-, which relates to the financial year 2015-16. Notably, no complaints or objections had been raised against the petitioner in the intervening years up to 2023, making this sudden recovery demand both unexpected and procedurally flawed. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner responded by asserting that he was never given an opportunity for a hearing prior to the issuance of the recovery order and maintained that the construction work was executed in full compliance with the law. Counsel emphasized that under sub-clauses (7) and (8) of Rule 9 of the MGNREGA Act, before adverse findings are formalized in a social audit report, the person concerned must be granted an opportunity to 5 be heard a fundamental principle of natural justice that was conspicuously disregarded in this case. Consequently, the order demanding recovery is inherently illegal, devoid of due process, and therefore liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents contends that prior to the issuance of the recovery order, a thorough and necessary inquiry was conducted, which revealed certain irregularities warranting the recovery of the amount totaling Rs. 84,823/- from the individual responsible. Consequently, the liability was appropriately transferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) as well as the petitioner. In light of these findings, it is submitted that the recovery order was passed in strict compliance with the applicable legal provisions, and therefore, there exists no justifiable ground for interference with the order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon a careful and thorough examination of the order, it becomes evident that neither the status report nor the enquiry provided the petitioner with any opportunity to be heard; rather, the recovery notice was issued covertly, without affording the petitioner any prior notice or chance to present their case, thereby denying them the fundamental right to a fair hearing and 6 due process. 7. Sub Clause (7) & (8) of Rule 9 of MGNREGA Act reads as under:- Rule 9 of Sub-Clause (7) & (8) states that "if any person is aggrieved by the social audit findings, the independent observes shall give an opportunity to re- examine in his/her presences". 8. A careful examination of the aforementioned clearly reveals that the inspection and inquiry based on the social audit report must be conducted in the presence of the concerned individual, ensuring they are provided a fair and adequate opportunity to be heard, which, in the present case, was not done. Whenever the law prescribes a specific procedure, it is imperative that such procedure be strictly adhered to without any deviation. The prescribed steps are integral to upholding the principles of fairness and due process, and therefore must be followed in their entirety and true spirit. Any failure to comply with these procedural requirements compromises the legitimacy of the process and cannot be condoned. 9. The entire case is predicated on a social audit report and an inspection conducted without the petitioner’s knowledge or involvement, and the said audit report is contrary to the rules and procedures mandated by law. Accordingly, in the opinion of this 7 Court, the report cannot be granted legal validity unless it is produced and approved in strict compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations, following due process. Moreover, considering that the recovery order pertains to the financial year 2015-16, and in light of the ruling in Rafiq Masih, the recovery order appears to be fundamentally illegal as it was passed without affording the concerned party an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the order unsustainable Therefore, the impugned recovery orders dated 21.8.2017 and 22.8.2017 are hereby set aside. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 11.If any amount is recovered pursuant to the impugned recovery order, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat