1 2025:CGHC:17970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3082 of 2023 1 - Premlal Sahu S/o Rammilan Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Turma, Post Datan (Khaira), Ward No. 5, Baloda Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Baloda Bazar, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Office (R) Baloda Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Deputy Government Advocate For Applicant Dwarika Prasad Ghidale : Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.24 16:26:41 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/04/2025 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order, directions and direct the respondent authorities and quash the impugned recovery notice dated 06.04.2023 and the proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 4 vide Annexure P/1. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the respondents to strictly comply with the provision of section 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and the petitioner may be granted proper opportunity of hearing including an opportunity for personal hearing. 10.3 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the material question of law involved in the instant writ petition is as to "whether the recovery proceedings u/s 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam can be initiated by the competent authority without following the adjudicatory procedures as per section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam?" 3. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Turma for the period from February 2010 to February 2020. During the term of his office as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Turma, the rivals of the petitioner leveled certain allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner is involved in the commission of irregularities during the term of his office. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by respondent no. 3, wherein the statements of the complainant as well as the petitioner was recorded and the petitioner submitted his detailed reply along with his statement 3 duly supported by records that the petitioner is not involved in any type of irregularly and there is absolutely no material much less any prima facie material for proceeding for recovery against the petitioner. A preliminary enquiry reported was prepared and submitted by the office of respondent no. 3 before the office of respondent no. 4. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, the Sub Divisional Officer (R) performs the functions of competent authority u/s 89 and section 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The respondent no. 4 relying solely upon the report submitted by the office of respondent no. 3 straight away registered the proceedings u/s 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam for adopting coercive measures for recovery of the amount from the petitioner without following the adjudicatory procedure u/s 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. It is submitted that the petitioner has been issued with the impugned recovery notices for adopting coercive measures for recovery and the petitioner has been further threatened with consequences of civil jail upon non fulfillment of the recovery amount. It is submitted that the competent authority has failed to draw the adjudicatory proceedings u/s 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and therefore the recovery proceedings u/s 92 is arbitrary, illegal, and bad in law and deserves to be quash/set-aside. The High Court of M.P. as well as this Court has under similar circumstances has held while interpreting section 89 of and 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and has held that the competent authority ought to comply with the provisions of Section 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam before proceeding for recovery u/s 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. 4. Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for applicant Dwarika Prasad Ghidale has filed an application on behalf of Dwarika Prasad Ghidale, Panchayat Secretary, who has been retired from service. It has been submitted by Shri Patel, learned counsel that due to pendency of this petition retiral dues of the applicant has not been paid, as such learned counsel has submitted the application for impleading the Panchayat Secretary/applicant Dwarika Prasad Ghidale as a necessary party in this case, may be allowed. 4 5. Since the petitioner has directly approached this Court under Section 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam without culmination of the proceedings under Section 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, this petition itself is not maintainable. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has rightly initiated the proceedings. The petitioner is directed to approach before the concerned authority for adjudication of the case pending before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). Till adjudication of the case before the concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. However, the proceedings may not be stalled. The petitioner may be granted proper opportunity of hearing. He may be permitted to submit his reply as well as documents upon which he is relying. Section 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam speaks only about show cause notice. Even if show cause notice is not issued, the proceedings under Section 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam cannot be said to be vitiated as in the said proceedings the petitioner has ample opportunity to defend himself. 6. Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel submits that he has filed an application on behalf of Panchayat Secretary for impleading him as a necessary party. It was argued that Dwarika Prasad Ghidale was Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, however, allegations were not made against him, but, due to pendency of the present petition, his retiral dues are not being given. As such, necessary direction may be issued. 7. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat concerned has already retired from service, however, due to pendency of the present petition his retiral dues are not being given. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, since there is nothing on record to show that any allegation is made against the Secretary, the respondents authorities are directed to disburse the retiral dues of the then Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, namely, Dwarika Prasad Ghidale. 9. Applicant Dwarika Prasad Ghidale is directed to approach before the concerned authority and in turn the concerned authority is directed to disburse all the retiral 5 dues of Dwarika Prasad Ghidale if there is no any impediment in disbursing the dues. The said retiral dues shall be disbursed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The proceedings, which were stayed by this Court vide order dated 10.7.2023, are directed to be concluded within a period of 60 days while giving proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh