1 2025:CGHC:19193 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2017 of 2025 1 - Nand Ram Lahare S/o Late Shri Charan Das Lahare Aged About 53 Years R/o Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate along with Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Government Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/04/2025 1. The petitioner challenges the legality of the impugned show-cause notice dated 12.03.2025, issued by Respondent No. 4, the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). The said notice, issued under Section 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, alleges that the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2,26,95,295/-, which pertains to 40 development works undertaken under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Guarantee Act (hereinafter referred to as "MGNREGA") during the financial years 2010–11, 2011–12, and 2012–13. The petitioner was directed to appear on 19.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m., along with all relevant documents and evidence in support of his case. The notice further states that failure to comply or non-appearance would result in ex parte proceedings, and the alleged amount would be recovered through revenue recovery proceedings. It also warns that the petitioner may be subjected to arrest and detention in civil jail for a period of 30 days. The petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court for quashing the aforementioned notice, asserting that it is illegal, arbitrary, and actuated by mala fide intentions on the part of the respondent authorities. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs by way of this writ petition :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash / set-aside the show-cause notice dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The case, as presented, is that the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kosir for the term 2009 to 2014. During this tenure, proceedings under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam were initiated against the petitioner on 10.03.2014, alleging misappropriation of funds related to works allocated under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). Pursuant to a show-cause notice dated 19.03.2014, issued under Sections 39, 40, and 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, it was alleged, based on an enquiry, that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2,26,95,295/- allocated for 40 3 development works under MGNREGA. The petitioner appeared before the prescribed authority and requested access to the enquiry report and other relevant documents; however, the same were never furnished to him. Meanwhile, the petitioner was arrested on 31.03.2014 in connection with an FIR lodged against him and remained in custody until 16.09.2014. During this period, on 22.05.2014, the prescribed authority passed an order against the petitioner, without affording him an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, by order dated 19.06.2014, the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 19.06.2014 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, contending that the impugned removal order was passed without granting him an opportunity of hearing and in violation of the prescribed procedure. Nevertheless, the Collector upheld the said order by its order dated 21.07.2014. A revision petition filed before the Additional Commissioner was also dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2018. The petitioner has challenged the aforementioned orders in W.P.(C) No. 1457 of 2019, which is currently pending and is at the stage of final adjudication. In parallel criminal proceedings, Criminal Case No. 353/2014 was registered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh–Bilaigarh, wherein the petitioner was acquitted of all charges vide judgment dated 28.06.2023. Now, after a lapse of approximately 11 years, the impugned notice dated 12.03.2025 has been issued to the petitioner, which is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and actuated by malice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject matter of the present controversy is already under adjudication before this 4 Hon’ble Court by way of a pending writ petition. Despite the pendency of said proceedings, the respondents have proceeded to issue a show- cause notice directing the petitioners to deposit the amount, which forms the core of the dispute in the earlier litigation. Such action is not only premature but also contrary to the settled principles of law, as any coercive step in relation to a matter sub judice amounts to interference with the due process of law and the authority of this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the issuance of a second show-cause notice purportedly under Section 92 of the Panchayati Rajya Adhiniyam is per se illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The said notice, having been issued without any fresh material or justification, constitutes an abuse of the statutory process and is liable to be quashed at the very threshold. It is categorically stated that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the impugned notice. The principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, have been blatantly violated in the instant case. The earlier order dated 19.06.2014, which is now being relied upon to proceed against the petitioner, was passed in absence of petitioner and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, thereby depriving petitioner of his right to present his case. In the absence of any cogent evidence or finding establishing misappropriation of funds, the petitioner cannot be presumed guilty. It is a settled proposition of law that adverse action against an individual cannot be sustained in the absence of due process and substantiated proof. The impugned action appears to be driven by extraneous considerations and is bereft of any legal or factual foundation. In light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the impugned notice is vitiated by illegality, procedural impropriety, and 5 breach of the fundamental tenets of justice. The same is, therefore, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State strenuously opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. It is submitted that the petition has been filed prematurely and is liable to be dismissed in limine, inasmuch as it challenges a mere show-cause notice, which by its very nature does not entail any civil consequences nor does it constitute a final order capable of being assailed in writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the impugned notice is purely preliminary in nature and has been issued with the sole object of providing the petitioner an opportunity to present his case, in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has been invited to submit his explanation and supporting evidence in response to the allegations made therein, prior to any decision being taken by the competent authority. It is a settled position of law that issuance of a show-cause notice does not infringe upon any legal right of the noticee, and as such, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted at this stage. It is also submitted that the language of the notice clearly reflects the intent of the authority to afford a fair hearing to the petitioner. There is no indication of any prejudgment or predetermined conclusion. On the contrary, the contents of the notice demonstrate that it is a procedural step initiated to seek a response from the petitioner and to consider the same before arriving at any final determination. The petitioner, therefore, has an efficacious alternative remedy available by way of submitting a reply to the show-cause notice, which renders the present 6 writ petition not only premature but also misconceived. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of non-maintainability. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed along with the petitioner with atmost circumspection. 6. So far as issuance of show-cause notice is concerned, the law in this respect is well settled. One cannot assail show-cause notice under extra ordinary jurisdiction inspite of preferring a reply to show-cause notice. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, has categorically held that a writ petition against a mere show-cause notice is not maintainable, unless it is demonstrated that the same has been issued without jurisdiction or in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below for ready reference : “14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that 7 a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge- sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.” 8. Now, addressing the second aspect, it must be borne in mind that the notice explicitly called upon the petitioner to submit a reply along with relevant documents. It was specifically stated therein that he would be afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. Under Sections 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, it is categorically provided that if any person is found to have caused loss, waste, or misapplication of any money or other property belonging to the Panchayat, such person is liable to make good the loss. However, it is a mandatory requirement that the person concerned must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before any such liability is imposed. Sections 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam is extracted below for ready reference : “89. Liability of Panch 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 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. (2) If the person concerned fails to pay the amount, such amount shall he recovered as 8 arrears of land revenue and credited to the funds of the Panchayat concerned.” 9. After issuance of show-cause notice, if the person concerned fails to deliver the articles of money involved in the notice, 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 30 days. Sections 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam is extracted below for ready reference : “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 be 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 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. 9 (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.” 10. Earlier, a proceeding was initiated under Sections 40, 89, and 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, pursuant to which an order dated 19.06.2014 was passed, holding the petitioner liable for misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 2,26,95,295/-. In the said order itself, it was specifically directed that for recovery of the aforesaid amount, separate proceedings under Section 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam be initiated against the petitioner. The said order has been affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner, and a writ petition challenging the same is presently pending consideration before this Court. In light of the fact that there is already a finding by the Sub- Divisional Officer holding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation and a consequential direction for initiation of proceedings under Section 92, this Court is of the prima facie view that the issuance of the impugned show-cause notice by the respondent-authorities for recovery of the said amount cannot be faulted. The notice categorically states that the petitioner will be afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and also warns that failure to submit a reply may result in recovery of the amount through revenue recovery proceedings, including the issuance of a warrant of arrest and civil imprisonment for a period of 30 days. 11. The petitioner has ample opportunity to rebut the allegations made against him by submitting an appropriate reply and participating in the proceedings before the competent authority. However, instead of availing the said remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court 10 prematurely. In the considered opinion of this Court, a mere show- cause notice, which does not constitute a final order, is not liable to be challenged at this stage. The Sub-Divisional Officer has clearly stated that the petitioner would be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing and has been directed to appear before the authority and present his case. Therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the issuance of the show-cause notice by the respondent-authorities at this stage. 12. The interference sought by the petitioner in these circumstances is wholly unwarranted. The petitioner ought to have approached the prescribed authority by filing a comprehensive reply. The concerned authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), is directed to consider the reply of the petitioner, provide him a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned and appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. 13. 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. 14. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE