1 2025:CGHC:52113-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 756 of 2025 Bihari Lal Soni S/o Late Khayali Ram Soni, Aged About 80 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Ramsagar Para Darri Road Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Prescribed Officer, Korba, Under Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 6. Ishwarlal Dhirhe S/o Gendram Dhirhe, Aged About 34 Years Occupation Secretary At Gram Panchayat- Murunara R/o Village- Karumoha, Post- Bundeli- Chowki Rajgamar, Thana- Balco, Tehsil Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl A.G. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.28 12:02:49 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.10.2025 1. The appellant/intervenor in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 8513 of 2022, by which, the learned Single Judge has disposed off the petition filed by the respondent No.6/writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant (intervenor in writ petition) had made complaints before the respondent authorities regarding the irregularities carried out by the Sarpanch and Secretary of the different gram panchayats of block Korba and Dist Korba C.G in relation to construction of toilets and the respondent no 6 herein (henceforth ‘the writ petitioner’) was secretary who was posted at Gram Panchayat, Jilga, Janpad Panchayat Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.). In the year 2016-17 construction of 735 Toilets was approved, out of which under M.B.M and under C.S.R., the responsibility of construction of the toilets was handed over to Gram Panchayat Jilga. However, within Gram Panchayat Jilga constructions of about 131 toilets were not even commenced, 221 toilets were incomplete and only 247 toilets were completed. On 3 the basis of the complaint enquiry committee was formed and on the basis of the enquiry report the respondent no 5 had sent a proposal letter to the respondent no 3 on 7/9/2022 for recovery of Rs. 42,24,000/-, thereafter respondent no 3 issued show cause notice to the writ petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs. 42,24,000/- otherwise he would be sent to Civil Jail for 1 month. On 18/11/2022 the respondent no. 4 had also issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioner as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The writ petitioner had filed a detailed reply dated 24/11/2022 of the show cause 18/11/2022 denying the content and allegations made against him. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition (S) no 8513/2022 against the show cause notice dated 18/11/2022 and 28/10/2022 and during the pendency of the writ petition the appellant had moved an application dated 11/3/2025 for intervention before the learned Single bench. Thereafter, after hearing the parties the learned single bench vide order dated 09/9/2025 disposed of the writ petition. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “ 7. Taking into consideration the fact that an enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and it was not conducted according to the provisions of 4 Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and further no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, the notice dated 28.10.2022 in hereby quashed. 8. The prescribed authority is directed to conduct an enquiry strictly in accordance with the law, keeping in view the observations recorded by this Court and the provisions of Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, and after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, may take a fresh decision. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s) the instant petition is hereby disposed of.” 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ intervenor in writ petition with the prayer that learned Single Bench has erred in passing the order and the writ petitioner had suppressed the fact about the enquiry. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in law and in fact by not considering the matter in its proper perspective. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that writ petitioner had duly submitted his detailed reply dated 18.11.2022 before the competent authorities, which clearly demonstrates that he was 5 afforded adequate opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel further argued that while passing the impugned order, reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Kadam Singh vs. CEO and Others, 2016 SCC Online MP 12064, was misplaced, as in the present case, proper opportunity had indeed been provided to writ petitioner. It was further submitted that the writ petitioner had misled the Court by falsely alleging denial of opportunity of hearing, whereas from a perusal of the reply filed as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition, it is evident that he was duly granted such opportunity. The writ petitioner, according to the appellant, did not approach the Court with clean hands and deliberately suppressed material facts regarding the enquiry proceedings. Learned counsel therefore urged that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is holding the post of village Secretary, Gram Panchayat- Jilga.. He further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba/Prescribed Authority under the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam, 1993") issued a notice on 28.10.2022 for recovery of 6 Rs.42.24,000/-. He also submitted that the order of recovery has been passed on the ground that the respondent No. 6 herein committed financial irregularity and an enquiry was conducted against the then Sarpanch, and the respondent No. 6. It is further contended that a notice dated 28.10.2022 has been issued according to the provisions of Section 92 (1)(2)(3)(5) of the Adhiniyam, 1993. It is also contended that no enquiry according to the provisions of Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was conducted; therefore the notice issued to the respondent is illegal and void ab initio, in support thereof he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Kadam Singh vs. Ceo and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine MP 12064. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat committed financial irregularities, therefore, after conducting a due enquiry, the order of recovery of Rs.42.24.000/- was passed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference 7 is called for with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, and that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent no. 6/writ petitioner prior to issuance of the notice dated 28.10.2022. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge merely requires the prescribed authority to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, which, in fact, is a direction to observe the principles of natural justice before taking any pneal action. The contention of the appellant that the respondent no. 6/writ petitioner had already been granted sufficient opportunity and that he had suppressed material facts does not find support from the record. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly quashed the impugned notice and directed a fresh enquiry as per law. Accordingly, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.09.2025, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 10. It is, however, clarified that the prescribed authority shall be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1993, and after providing due opportunity of hearing to all concerned, may take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. 8 11. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti