1 2025:CGHC:55245 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4399 of 2023 1 - Smt. Pratistha Thakur W/o Piyush Prakash Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Flat No. 301, Block-C, Simran Galaxy Apartment, Phase-5, Mathpurena, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Office Of Lokpal Mahatama Gandhi Rasthriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Adhiniyam, Chamber No.21, First Flor, Jila Panchayat Parisar, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 12/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the orders dated 27.06.2022 and 26.04.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Durgukondal, whereby a recovery of Rs. 46,675/- and Rs. 29,269/- respectively has been ordered against the Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 petitioner. These recovery orders arise from the award of the Lokpal dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P/2). Therefore, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned orders seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record relating to his case. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the order 27.06.2022 and 26.04.2023 (Annexure P/1) which arise from the award dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P/2) passed by Lokpal, in the interest of justice. 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. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was working on the post of Programme Officer under the control of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh) from 11.03.2013 to 07.09.2021. During her tenure, particularly in the year 2019, a work relating to plantation at Gothan/Charagah under the MGNREGA Scheme was initiated on 27.06.2019 in Gram Panchayat Tarhul. Subsequently, a complaint was filed before the Lokpal, MGNREGA, District Kanker, alleging irregularities in the said plantation work. The learned Lokpal took cognizance of the complaint and registered Case No. 04/2021. It is pertinent to mention that the complaint was made against three persons, namely, the present petitioner, who was then the Programme Officer; Shri Sarit Kumar Nishad, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Tarhul; and Smt. Sushila Kureti, Employment Assistant. It is important to point out that from the year 2019 to 2021, the complainant never raised any specific allegation or charge against the present petitioner. However, after conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Lokpal, vide award dated 17.12.2021, recorded the observations and directions that In order to make up for the damage caused in the 3 plantation, the District Programme Coordinator and Collector should decide whether the re-plantation work should be carried out by installing tree guards through the responsible MGNREGA Programme Officer, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, and Employment Assistant. The Collector and District Programme Coordinator were directed to take the decision accordingly. It was observed that the damage in the plantation occurred due to negligence and lack of maintenance, and that action under Section 25 of the MGNREGA Act should be taken against all responsible officers and work agencies. The Lokpal further noted that the payment for tree guards was made without proper verification, which was against the rules, and directed that necessary corrective measures be taken by the District Programme Coordinator to prevent such occurrences in the future. It was also observed that the information board was not found at the site, thereby raising doubts about the transparency of the work. The Lokpal, therefore, considered it appropriate to warn the Programme Officer and the concerned work agency to ensure transparency in future works. Prior to the passing of the above award, the petitioner was called upon by the Lokpal to submit her written explanation, which she duly submitted on 12.10.2021, along with supporting documents such as photographs of the notice board, photographs of the working labourers, muster rolls, and bills of sanctioned amounts paid to the vendor. In her explanation, the petitioner specifically clarified that the Assistant Technician, Shri Narottam Darra, had resigned from his post and therefore could not certify the valuation. After the valuation process, the tree guard bill vouchers were sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer for approval. Since the tree guards were not available locally, a special request was made to procure them from an authorized firm. Accordingly, the tree guards were purchased and installed at the proper site, and payment was made to the registered vendor in accordance with prescribed procedures. Based on the aforesaid award of the Lokpal dated 17.12.2021, the respondent No. 2, Chief Executive 4 Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Durgukondal, issued the impugned orders dated 27.06.2022 and 26.04.2023 (Annexure P/1 colly), directing recovery of Rs. 46,675/- and Rs. 29,269/- respectively from the petitioner. The said orders are impugned in the present petition as being illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, having been passed without proper consideration of the explanation of petitioner and without any finding of personal liability or misconduct on her part. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned orders dated 27.06.2022 and 26.04.2023 is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional. The said orders are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as they have been passed without following the principles of natural justice and without any legal basis establishing the direct or indirect involvement in the alleged financial loss. It is further submitted that before issuance of the impugned recovery orders, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not conduct any inquiry, investigation, or fact-finding process to determine whether the petitioner was actually responsible for the alleged loss of Rs. 46,675/- and Rs. 29,269/-. The impugned action has thus been taken in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further stated that the recovery of Rs. 46,675/- has been initiated directly from the account of petitioner, without any adjudication of liability or approval from the competent authority, which is contrary to law and administrative fairness. It is further submitted that, as per the official records and photographic evidence, the formal inspection of the work was carried out in the year 2021, whereas the plantation work had been completed in the year 2019. The inspection, conducted after a lapse of more than two years, cannot provide a reliable or accurate assessment of the condition of plantation or tree guards. Such a delayed inspection vitiates the entire finding of negligence attributed to the petitioner, as deterioration over such a long 5 period could have occurred due to natural causes or lack of maintenance by subsequent authorities, for which the petitioner cannot be held liable. The learned counsel for petitioner also submits that the post of Lokpal (Ombudsman) has been created under Section 27 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA). The functions and powers of the Lokpal, particularly regarding disposal of complaints, are governed by Clause 12 of the MGNREGA (Ombudsman) Guidelines. It is submitted that the Lokpal, in the present case, exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing directions that have resulted in direct monetary recovery from the petitioner, which is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act or the Guidelines. The role of Lokpal is recommendatory and advisory in nature and does not empower him to fix personal liability without due process. It is further submitted that, at the relevant time, the Sub- Divisional Officer (SDO), Jagdalpur was holding additional charge of Durgukondal, and the petitioner had duly submitted the bills for tree guards before the said officer for approval. However, since the officer was not available at the office of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Durgukondal, the petitioner had to wait for approval. The vendor firm had also clearly stated that it would not supply the tree guards without advance payment. Hence, there was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the petitioner, as she had complied with all procedural requirements within her limited administrative powers. It is further pointed out that the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Tarhul and the President of Gothan Samiti, Gram Panchayat Tarhul, Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker, had jointly reported to the S.H.O., Police Chowki Damkasa, Police Station Bhanupratappur, that the tree guards provided under the Government scheme in 2019 had gone missing, and presently only 2 to 4 tree guards were available at the site. This clearly indicates that the alleged loss occurred after the completion of the work and was due to subsequent circumstances 6 beyond the control of petitioner, further exonerating her from any liability. The learned counsel for the petitioner also draws attention to the fact that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, North Bastar Kanker, had issued an Experience Certificate dated 08.09.2021 in favour of the petitioner, acknowledging her satisfactory service record and efficient discharge of duties during her tenure. This official recognition by the superior authority itself demonstrates that there were no pending allegations or complaints against the petitioner at the time of her service, which further establishes the arbitrary and unjust nature of the subsequent recovery orders. 4. Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner, submits that the allegations of arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 21 are wholly misconceived and untenable. The impugned recovery orders dated 27.06.2022 and 26.04.2023 have been issued strictly in compliance with the award of the Lokpal dated 17.12.2021, which was passed after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and upon proper examination of records, technical verification, and witness statements. It is further submitted that the Lokpal/Ombudsman acted within the ambit of his statutory powers under the MGNREGA Act and the Guidelines, and after recording specific findings of negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner and others. The award passed by Lokpal is a reasoned and speaking order, and the subsequent recovery merely implements those findings; hence, no separate enquiry was required to be conducted by respondent authorities. The contention that inspection was delayed or that the petitioner was not responsible for the loss is a matter of factual defence, already considered during the Lokpal proceedings. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to submit her explanation and supporting documents, which were duly examined before passing the award. Therefore, the plea of lack of natural justice is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. It is also submitted that the petitioner has bypassed the 7 statutory appellate remedy available under the MGNREGA framework and has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which renders the present petition not maintainable. In view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned orders suffer from no illegality or arbitrariness, and that the petition deserves to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. The central question for determination in the present case is whether the impugned orders dated 27.06.2022 and 26.04.2023 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Durgukondal, directing recovery of Rs. 46,675/- and Rs. 29,269/- respectively from the petitioner, can be sustained in law in light of the award of the Lokpal dated 17.12.2021. 7. From the record, it is evident that the Lokpal, MGNREGA, District Kanker, while deciding Case No. 04/2021, had made certain observations regarding negligence in maintenance of plantation work and directed the Collector and District Programme Coordinator to take appropriate action under Section 25 of the MGNREGA Act against the responsible officers and work agency. However, a plain reading of the award passed by Lokpal reveals that no specific finding of personal liability or quantification of financial loss attributable to the present petitioner was recorded. The award passed by Lokpal primarily contained recommendatory directions for administrative action and corrective measures, and did not, by itself, authorize direct monetary recovery from any officer. It is further undisputed that the impugned recovery orders have been passed by the respondent authorities solely on the basis of the award passed by Lokpal, without conducting any independent enquiry or fact-finding process to determine the extent of the responsibility of petitioner, if any, for the alleged financial loss. The consistent stand of petitioner, supported by contemporaneous records and documents, 8 is that she had submitted the required bills and vouchers to the competent authority for approval, that the plantation work was duly executed, and that the alleged damage occurred much later, due to factors beyond her control. These factual assertions have not been effectively rebutted by the respondents. The Court finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to her before directing recovery of the amount directly from her account. The impugned orders do not disclose any reasoned finding fixing liability upon the petitioner, nor do they refer to any departmental proceedings or enquiry conducted to establish her culpability. 8. It is a settled principle of law that recovery from a public servant cannot be ordered without affording due opportunity of hearing and without following the procedure prescribed under law. Furthermore, under the scheme of the MGNREGA Act, 2005 and the Ombudsman Guidelines, the Lokpal functions as a quasi-judicial authority empowered to inquire into complaints and recommend appropriate action. The recommendations made by Lokpal, however, are not self-executing orders of recovery. The competent authority is required to apply its independent mind, conduct necessary verification, and provide an opportunity to the concerned official before implementing any recovery. In the present case, such procedural safeguards have not been observed. The impugned orders being administrative in nature and passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court is justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 27.06.2022 and 26.04.2023 cannot be sustained in law, as they have been passed without conducting any independent 9 enquiry, without assigning reasons, and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The same are, therefore, liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.06.2022 and 26.04.2023 (Annexure P/1 colly) are hereby quashed. 11. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents or the competent departmental authority from initiating fresh proceedings, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law, and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Any such proceedings shall be conducted in adherence to the principles of natural justice, and no recovery shall be made from the petitioner unless her liability is duly established through a lawful process. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands allowed and the impugned recovery orders are set aside. No order as to costs. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE