1 2025:CGHC:21641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2481 of 2025 1 - Ram Prakash Yadav S/o Peela Ram Yadav Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Secretary, Gram Panchayat Keshavpur, Blok Ambikapur, R/o Village Thore, Bhitthikala, Police Station Manipur, Ambikapur District - Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Social Welfare Department Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Sarguja Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Sarguja District - Sarguja (C.G.). 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.). 5 - Sub - Divisional Officer Ambikapur District - Sarguja (C.G.) 6 - Sharuhan Yadav R/o - Parsonpara, Gram Panchayat Keshavpur, Ambikapur Block, District - Sarguja (C.G.) M.No.-6267951248. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.05.12 19:50:46 +0530 2 Order on Board 09/05/2025 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s on advance copy. 2. By this instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble may kindly quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur (Repondent No. 5) (Annexure P-1). 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is at present working as Secretary (Panchayat Karmi Sachiv), Gram Panchayat Keshavpur, Block- Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) and has been suspended vide order dated 07.04.25 (ANNEXURE P/2). The petitioner was initially appointed as a Panchayat Karmi Sachiv/Secretary at Gram Panchayat Thore on 04/08/2000, thereafter he was transferred to Gram Panchayat Labji, Pondi- Khurd, in the year 2009 and thereafter he was transferred to the present place, Gram Panchayat Keshavpur on 07/08/2019, Since then, he is working there. During Public Interaction (Jan Darshan) 3 of the Respondent No. 2(Collector), Respondent No. 6 has made complaint against Sarpanch of Keshavpur for the corruption done by the Sarpanch Imtan Singh for the years from 2019-2021. On receiving the complaint Respondent No.4 issued a notice to Respondent No.5 and other officers for enquiry into the matter in which they have submitted the report (ANNEXURE P/5). Thereafater on 10/03/2025 a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner for why disciplinary action may not be taken against him which has been replied by the petitioner on 20/03/25. Thereafter, based upon the enquiry report, Charge-sheet has been been issued to the Petitioner on 25/04/2025 under Panchayat Service (Discipline And Appeal) Rule 1999 and Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 1966, Rule 9(1)(ka) and the Respondent No. 5 has straightway issued the impugned order dated 29/04/25 directing the Petitioner and Sarpanch Imtan Singh to deposit Rs. 28,50,761 together, without conclusion of the case registered before him. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner is required to comply the impugned order as there is misappropriation/embezzlement of huge amount. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 4 6. Since the petitioner has been issued notice and it has been replied by the petitioner, now the concerned SDO (R) is required to initiate proceeding under Section 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, in which full opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner in respect of allegation made against him, as such, the petition at this stage is disposed of with the direction to the authorities concerned. 7. The prescribed authority SDO (R) is directed to give every opportunity to petitioner including the documents upon which they are relying and to initiate proceeding in accordance with law. 8. The petitioner is at liberty to seek time and to give evidence in respect of his defence. As proceedings are yet to be finalized there would be no question regarding giving effect of the notice. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi