1 2025:CGHC:51444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2956 of 2023 1 - Manish Kumar Dhruw S/o R.N. Dhruw Aged About 33 Years Working As Technical Assistant, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.10.2025 1 The instant writ petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5 (Annexure P/1) whereby without affording any opportunity of hearing, without adhering any provisions of law, without any jurisdiction, in complete violation of principles of natural justice, the respondent no. 5 has issued an order for recovery of Rs. 1,62,685/- against the petitioner. 2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3 3 The petitioner is serving as a Technical Assistant in Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, and has been performing his duties sincerely and without any complaint. In the year 2013-14, several construction works were sanctioned under different Gram Panchayats, which were duly completed as per prescribed standards and verified by the authorities, leading to release of payments to the beneficiaries. However, during an audit conducted in 2016-17, certain irregularities were pointed out, and on that basis, recovery orders dated 20.01.2021, 03.03.2022, and 06.04.2022 were issued against the concerned Sarpanch and Secretaries, some of whom have challenged the same before the Hon’ble Court, resulting in interim stay orders. Despite this, the respondent no. 5 has suddenly issued an impugned recovery order proposing recovery of Rs.1,62,685/- against the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without having jurisdiction or authority to initiate disciplinary action against him, leading to the filing of the present petition. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned recovery order is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, as the works in question were executed in 2013 under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, duly verified as per prescribed standards, and payments were accordingly released to the beneficiaries; the alleged irregularities were pointed out only after 3–4 years in an audit, 4 which by itself cannot be the basis for recovery, particularly when the works were rough in nature and might have been damaged due to heavy rainfall, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible; further, for the same works, recovery orders issued against the concerned Sarpanch and Secretaries have already been stayed by the Hon’ble Court, yet the respondent no. 5, who has no authority or jurisdiction to initiate such action, has issued the impugned recovery order against the petitioner after nearly 10 years, without conducting any enquiry or affording an opportunity of hearing, which is violative of principles of natural justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 5 Learned State Counsel, per contra, submits that the audit conducted for the works executed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme has clearly pointed out financial and technical irregularities in the construction works, and therefore the recovery has rightly been ordered. It is contended that mere completion of works or initial verification cannot absolve the petitioner of his responsibility, as the petitioner, being Technical Assistant, was under obligation to ensure that the works were executed strictly as per norms and standards. The plea of damage due to rainfall is afterthought and cannot be a ground to avoid recovery of government money, particularly when the audit has found serious lapses. It is further submitted that the recovery is based on the audit report prepared by competent authorities and the petitioner, being part of the 5 implementation team, is equally liable along with the Sarpanch and Secretary for the loss caused to the government exchequer. Therefore, the impugned recovery order has been rightly passed and does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7 Upon hearing both parties and examining the record, it is evident that the recovery order dated 15.04.2023 passed against the petitioner who is a Technical Assistant involved in MGNREGA works during 2013–14, suffers from procedural lapses, having been initiated solely on audit observations made after over three years, without prior enquiry or affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard is violating principles of natural justice. While similar recovery actions against other officials have been stayed, no justification has been offered for choosing out the petitioner. However, the impugned communication (Annexure P/1) appears to be only a show cause notice under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 and not a final recovery order. Therefore, the writ petition is premature, and the petitioner must first submit his reply, which the competent authority is obliged to consider before passing a reasoned and lawful order under Sections 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam 1993. 6 8 In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is granted liberty to appear before the concerned SDO in the proceeding which has been initiated regarding irregularities committed by the petitioner and the concerned SDO is directed to consider the same and decide the same after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha