1 2025:CGHC:19699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2120 of 2025 1 - Uday Ram Patel S/o Sukhiram Aged About 49 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Baktara Block Aarang Tahsil Aarnag District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Authorized Officer Aarang (Mu.) Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Aarang District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : - “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to call complete record in respect of case under Mad C/151 | Case No. 16/2019-2020 (Online Revenue Case No. 201908112400029/B-121/year 2018-19)] registered before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Aarang District Raipur (C.G.) for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 certiorari/order/direction quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for recovery of amount Rs. 560160. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief by issuing any other suitable writ, direction or order, deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of petition.” 2. The case, as presented, is that the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Baktara, Block Aarang, Tehsil Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.) for the period from 2015 to 2020. During his tenure, the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) of Janpad Panchayat Aarang issued a letter dated 13.08.2015 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Aarang, alleging misappropriation of funds amounting to 5,60,160/- by the petitioner and recommending action under Section ₹ 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, along with his removal from office. Based on this, a case was registered under Mad C/151 [Case No.16/2019-2020 (Online Revenue Case No. 201908112400029/B- 121/year 2018-19)] and notice was issued to the petitioner, who thereafter submitted his preliminary objection stating that no prior show cause notice was served upon him and denied the allegations, asserting that no misappropriation had occurred during his tenure. He also submitted relevant records such as the proposal register, labor payment slips, and his statement under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. Further, the petitioner submitted detailed written arguments refuting all allegations. The Sub-Divisional Officer then forwarded the documents to the C.E.O., who issued a memorandum dated 13.10.2021, but the same was never provided to the petitioner. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not attend the proceedings, but despite 3 this, the Sub-Divisional Officer, without passing any formal recovery order or providing an opportunity for cross-examination or proper hearing, directly issued a demand notice dated 11.07.2022 to recover the alleged amount, which is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire enquiry proceedings conducted against him are vitiated by gross procedural irregularities and violation of the principles of natural justice. No notice or show cause notice was ever served upon the petitioner prior to initiation or during the course of the enquiry, which was conducted behind his back, and despite the allegations not being proved, directions for recovery were arbitrarily issued. The enquiry report was relied upon without granting any opportunity of hearing, and although the petitioner, upon receiving notice, submitted preliminary objections, written arguments, and relevant documents refuting the allegations of misappropriation for the years 2015-16 to 2019-20, the authorities failed to consider the same. The Sub Divisional Officer, without passing any formal recovery order or affording an opportunity for cross- examination or a proper hearing, acted merely on a memorandum issued by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Aarang, who ignored the submissions of the petitioner. Further, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the absence of petitioner was due to prevailing restrictions, yet the demand notice dated 11.07.2022 was issued without legal basis, rendering the entire recovery process arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the contentions of the petitioner are without merit and should be dismissed. It is evident that during his tenure as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Baktara, the petitioner was duly issued a notice in connection with the allegations of misappropriation of funds amounting to 5,60,160/-. This notice was issued based on a ₹ recommendation from the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) of Janpad Panchayat Aarang, following a complaint received regarding the misuse of public funds. The petitioner was fully aware of the charges against him and participated in the proceedings by submitting preliminary objections, relevant records, and written arguments. The assertion that no show cause notice was issued is incorrect, as proper procedures were followed in notifying the petitioner. Furthermore, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) forwarded the relevant documents to the C.E.O., who issued the memorandum on 13.10.2021. Despite the failure of petitioner to attend the proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sub-Divisional Officer did not act arbitrarily but followed due process and law by issuing the demand notice for recovery of the misappropriated amount. The claim of petitioner of violation of natural justice, including lack of a hearing or opportunity for cross-examination, is unfounded, as the proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable law and administrative procedures. The recovery order issued on 11.07.2022 is legal and based on a valid enquiry and findings, and the absence of petitioner does not invalidate the process. Therefore, the arguments of petitioner are misplaced, and the demand for recovery must be upheld. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed along with the petitioner with atmost circumspection. 6. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated against him for the recovery of 5,60,160/- based on ₹ allegations of misappropriation of funds. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, and that he was not afforded a proper opportunity to present his case, including the lack of a show cause notice, hearing, and cross-examination. However, without commenting on the merits of the allegations, it is observed that the petitioner ought to have approached the prescribed authority by filing a comprehensive reply to the notices issued to him. The petitioner has already participated in the proceedings by submitting preliminary objections, records, and written arguments. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize that the concerned authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), has the obligation to duly consider all submissions made by the petitioner, provide him with a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and ensure that all procedural requirements are met in accordance with law. 7. In light of the foregoing observations, this Court directs the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Aarang to consider the detailed reply and objections of the petitioner, provide him a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and pass a reasoned and appropriate order, strictly in accordance with the law. The concerned authority is required to ensure that the principles of natural justice are duly followed during the 6 proceedings, and any action taken must be based on a thorough examination of the facts and law. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The prescribed authority shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders, but only after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE