1 2025:CGHC:44975 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4683 of 2025 Yogeshwri Sahu W/o Bhanu Pratap Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Kopra, P.O. Kopra, P.S. Panduka, Tahsil And Block Rajim, Distt. Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 -Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Revenue Sub Division, Rajim, Distt. Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. RS Baghel, Advocate with Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03.09.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the 2 Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT: 1. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondents. 2. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the entire proceeding drawn U/S. 92 of the Adhiniyam 1993 bearing case no. 202409221600053/2022-23 by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure P/1) against the petitioner by issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent authorities. 3. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the finding in the Inquiry Report (P/5) which is against the petitioner. 4. Any other relief/relief's which Hon'ble court may deem fit in the fact s and circumstances of the instant case.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that petitioner is being continuously harassed by the respondents- authorities, firstly by suspending her from the post of ‘Sarpanch’ under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (‘Adhiniyam 1993’), but timely this Court has intervened and saved her by granting stay in her favour, however, by doing machinations, she was not allowed to join on the post of Sarpanch and, thereafter, a separate proceeding under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam 1993 was initiated against the petitioner, in which, the 3 petitioner has objected mentioning that similar matter is pending before this Court, but respondent No.4 has rejected the objection/request and proceeded with the illegal proceedings under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam 1993. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision/order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP No.8265/2016 and order of this Court’s dated 13.11.2024 passed in WPS No.6990/2024. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the Sarpanch has committed financial irregularities; therefore, after conducting a due enquiry, impugned order Annexure P-1 has been passed in which interference is not required. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition alongwith material available on record. 6. For ready reference, Section 89(1) & 92 of the Adhiniyam 1993 reads as under : “Section 89. Liability of Panc etc, for loss, misappropriation-- (1) 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 4 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. Section 92. Power to recover records, articles and money--- (1) Where the prescribed authority is of the opinion that any person has unauthorisedly in his custody any record or article or money belonging to the Panchayat, he may, by a written order, require that the record or article or money be delivered or paid forthwith to the Panchayat, in the presence of such officer as may he appointed by the prescribed authority in this behalf. (2) If any person fails or refuses to deliver the record or article or pay the money as directed under sub-section (1), the prescribed authority may cause him to be apprehended and may send him with a warrant in such form as may be prescribed, to be confined in a Civil Jail for a period not longer than thirty days. (3) The prescribed authority may,-- (a) for recovering any such money direct that such money be recovered as an arrear of land revenue; and (b) for recovering any such record or articles issue a search warrant and exercise all such powers with respect thereto as may lawfully be 5 exercised by a Magistrate under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974). (4) No action under sub-section (1) or (2) or (3) 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. (5) A person against whom an action is taken under this section shall be disqualified to be member of any Panchayat for a period of six years commencing from the initiation of such action. 7. Perusal of aforesaid section reveals that the Authorized Officer for fixing the liability of the Sarpanch, Panch etc for loss or misappropriation is the Collector/Additional Collector, however, in case at hand, instead of the Collector/Additional Collector, respondent No.4/SDO (R) has passed the order, who is not authorized as per the provision of Section 89(1) of the Adhiniyam 1993, hence, it is crystal clear that respondent-authority has not followed the norms of the Section 89(1). The legislature intend to first passed the order under Section 89(1) to fix the liability of Sarpanch for loss or misappropriation and, thereafter, passed the order under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam 1993 for recover of the money. 8. In view of above discussion/observation, this Court is of the considered view that proceeding drawn against the petitioner under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam 1993 is not sustainable in the 6 eye of law, therefore, same deserves to be set-aside. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part. The proceeding drawn against the petitioner under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam 1993 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside. However, respondent- authority concerned will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding under Section 89(1) of the Adhiniyam 1993 against the petitioner and if any liability is fixed against him then they may proceed under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam 1993. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-