1 2025:CGHC:20459 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2249 of 2025 1 - Uma Navratan W/o Raghuveer Nirala Aged About 36 Years R/o Gurughasidas Chouk Ward No. 1 Nagaridih District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Pooja Banjare Working As Sarpanch Village Odkakan Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Mahima Tandon, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 1. Heard. 2 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to call complete record in respect of case petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari/order/direction quashing the notice dated 18.03.2025. 10.3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief by issuing any other suitable writ, direction or order, deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of petition.” 3. Facts of the present case, in short, are that the petitioner was a former Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Odkakan (January 28, 2022, to January 17, 2023), received a show-cause notice on February 6, 2024, from the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh. The notice alleged that she, along with the Sarpanch and another individual, retained Gram Panchayat property worth Rs. 25,85,600. Despite handing over charge to the new Panchayat Secretary, Shivkumari Banjare, a subsequent notice dated March 18, 2025, demanded recovery of Rs. 2,60,717 (her share of Rs.7,82,150). The petitioner submitted a reply and provided a receipt for Rs.6 lakh given to the Sarpanch, but the respondent authority disregarded this and directed her 3 to pay the recovery amount, which she claims is arbitrary and illegal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Odkakan Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). She further submits that a notice of recovery has been issued to the petitioner under Section 89 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short ‘Adhiniyam 1993’) vide Annexure P/1. She goes on to submit that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner behind her back and neither any opportunity of hearing nor any show-cause notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, Annexure P/1 is arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. 5. Ms. Nupur Sonkar, Panel Lawyer for the State submits that since a show-cause notice (Annexure P/1) has been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner can very well file reply before the respondent authorities disputing the allegations made against her and thereafter appropriate proceedings will be drawn up by the SDO (Revenue) under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4 7. In the notice (Annexure P/1) itself it has been specifically mentioned that notice is being issued under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 in respect of misappropriation amounting to Rs.25,85,600/- (in words ‘Twenty Five Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Six Hundred’ Rupees). It was further stated that why proceedings may not be drawn up against her under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. It was further stated that reasonable opportunity of being heard would be given to the petitioner and she was also directed to remain present on 15.02.2024 at 11:00 AM along with her written reply/evidence, failure of appearance would entail the petitioner for ex-parte proceedings and the result would be for recovery of amount as per revenue recovery proceedings and issuance of arrest warrant for detaining the petitioner in civil jail for 30 days. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is directed to file a suitable reply before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh/Respondent No.2, along with necessary documents. The SDO (Revenue), Bilaigarh, is then directed to consider the petitioner's reply and pass appropriate orders. If any proceedings under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, is required, the petitioner shall be given a proper opportunity of hearing, after which necessary orders shall be passed. It is also 5 made clear that under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, no action shall be taken unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to the person concerned to show cause why such action should not be taken against him. 9. In the meanwhile, the Chief Executive Office Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh/Respondent No.3 is also directed to give relevant documents to the petitioner, if required. 10. With these observation(s) and direction(s), this instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Date: 2025.05.05 20:16:28 +0530