1 2025:CGHC:2664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 263 of 2025 1 Chhotelal Sonwani S/o Sukhram Sonwani Aged About 52 Years Ex - Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bacharwar, Janpad Panchayat Pendra, Tahsil Pendra District Gaurella Pendra Marvahi Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 Collector Gaurella, District Gaurella Pendra Marvahi Chhattisgarh. 3 The Commissioner Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (Mnrega), Vikas Bhawan, Sector - 19, North Block, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 Sub Divisional Officer (R) Pendra, District Gaurella Pendra Marvahi Chhattisgarh. 5 Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pendra, District Gaurella Pendra Marvahi Chhattisgarh. 6 The Project Officer (Drda) Janpad Panchayat Pendra, District Gaurella Pendra Marvahi Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate 2 For Respondent(s) / State : Shri Santosh Bharat, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 16/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is an Ex-Sarpanch of village Bacharwar Janpad Panchayat Pendra, District: Gaurella-Pendra-Marvahi questioning the communication dated 14/06/2024 issued by the C.EO. and the Programme Officer(DRDA) of the Janpad Panchayat Pendra, by which, recovery of Rs. 259836/- has been directed by the respondents alleging financial irregularities committed during the tenure of the petitioner from 2017-18 to 2018-19. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed by the C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat Pendra without issuing any show cause notice and no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and the order itself has been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature as the C.E.O, Janpad Panchayat has passed the order pursuance to the social audit conducted by the team of Social Audit under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. He refers the provision of Section 89 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and submits that this is an order of the C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, by which, the C.E.O. has asked the petitioner to deposit the amount which is alleged to be misappropriated and if the petitioner failed to pay the same, then the proceeding under Section 89 of the Act, 1993 will be drawn against the petitioner and where the principles of natural justice is to be followed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the provision of Section 89 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 as well as the order dated 14/06/2024 passed by the C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, Pendra. 5. Vide order dated 14/06/2024, by which, the C.E.O, Janpand Panchayat, Pendra has directed the petitioner to deposit the amount alleged to be misappropriated by the petitioner within a stipulated period, otherwise, it is stated that the proceedings will be drawn for recovery of the same from the petitioner. 6. Section 89 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 provides as under:- “Section 89. Liability of Panch etc. for loss, misappropriation- Every Panch, member, office-bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat shall be personally liable for loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other property of the Panchayat to which he has been a party or which has been caused by him by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties. The amount required for reimbursing such loss, waste, or misapplication shall be recovered by the prescribed authority: Provided that no recovery shall be made under this section unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 7. From perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is very clear that a recovery can only be made after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the concerned Panch/Officer bearer of the Panchayat. In the present case, though the C.E.O. has asked the petitioner to deposit the same, but if the petitioner failed to deposit the same, then the proceeding has to be drawn under Section 89 of the Act, 1993 by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State also submits that when the recovery will be made in case of non-payment of the said amount 4 stated to be misappropriated by the audit team, the recovery proceeding shall be drawn under Section 89 of the Act, 1993 by giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case of recovery of amount from the petitioner, as alleged in the order of the C.E.O, Janpad Panchayat, the same be recovered by giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with the provision of Section 89 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti