1 2025:CGHC:47650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1069 of 2015 Nagendra Singh Patel S/o Late Shri Ram Nath Singh Aged About 55 Years Working As Assistant Director Horticulture, Janjgir, Post Office- Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through - The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.O. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector And Programme Coordinator Manrega, Dist. Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Kanker, Dist. Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Lokpal Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Room No. 21, First Floor, Zila Panchayat Campus, Dist. Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Directorate Of Horticulture And Farm Forestry, Through- Its 2 Director, Office Of The H.O.D., 2nd Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent No. 1, 2 and 5 : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board 16.09.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed on 24.07.2014 by respondent no. 4, letter/order dated 13.04.2015 issued by respondent no. 2 and letter/order dated 12.05.2015 issued by respondent no. 5. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this petition are that Department of Horticulture/Agriculture had undertaken a project to convert the barren lands admeasuring 15 Hectares (37.5 Acres) belonging to 20 farmers, which was taken under lease for 03 years, into orchards in Gram Panchayat Mardapoti under the Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Scheme (herein called as MNREGA). Project was sanctioned by respondent no. 3 vide order dated 05.08.2013. However, on the basis of news-item published in a daily newspaper namely- Dainik Bhaskar, Raipur on 10.02.2014 regarding so called embezzlement of funds relating to plantation in Gram Panchayat Mardapoti, Janpad Panchayat & District-Kanker, a suo moto inquiry was 3 conducted by respondent no. 4 and passed the impugned award dated 24.07.2014, holding that petitioner is responsible for 75% loss. On the basis of that award, respondent no. 2 issued impugned letter/order dated 13.04.2015 fixing a total liability of Rs. 3,13,577.25/- upon the petitioner and based upon which respondent no. 5 also issued an impugned order/letter dated 12.05.2015 asking petitioner to deposit the said amount. 3. During course of argument, learned counsel for State made a submission that there is provision of appeal against impugned order passed by respondent no. 4. He contended that the award dated 24.07.2014 was passed against two employees i.e. petitioner and one Salikram Gangber. An appeal before Appellate Authority against the award dated 24.07.2014 was preferred by Salikram Gangber, which came to be allowed vide order dated 07.04.2017 and a copy of the same is placed on record along with covering memo dated 16.09.2025. 4. Counsel for petitioner contended that from perusal of appellate order placed in record along with covering memo, it is apparent that recommendation in para 7.2 and 7.3 of impugned award has been recommended to be set aside by appellate authority and if that is so, the entire finding of embezzlement recorded by respondent no. 4 in impugned award, which is against petitioner and another employee i.e. non-applicant no. 2 therein, has been recommended for setting aside and therefore, from appellate 4 order it is appearing that as of now, there is no recommendation or recovery of amount, as mentioned therein against petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused record of trial Court. 6. In view of submission made by counsel for the respective parties, and the award passed by appellate authority dated 07.04.2017 where in the appellate authority by detailed award held that the recommendation in para 7.2 and 7.3 of award passed by Lok pal dated 24.07.2014 is recommended to be set aside and further that it is not brought to the notice of this Court that the award of appellate authority is challenged before any higher forum, in the opinion of this Court nothing remains for adjudication. 7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of at this stage reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate proceedings before appropriate authority, if any exigency arises in future. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza