1 2025:CGHC:56435 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2137 of 2012 1 - Madhukar Banjare S/o Lt Firandas Banjare Aged About 43 Years R/o Vill Post Tah And Thana Somni, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through Secreary, Panchayat And Rurqal Deptt, Dks Bhawan, Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Collector Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State / Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Shalini Kashyap, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 19/11/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.11.25 15:02:54 +0530 2 1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash/set aside proceeding pending before the respondent no. 3 in case no. 05 A/89 2010-2011 (Annexure P/6) Π The Hon'ble court may kindly please to direct the respondent authroity not to recover any amount from the petitioner. III. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to call for the records of the case from the respondents. VI. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Somni, District Rajnandgaon, CG from the year 1994/2000. During his tenure, a complaint was made against him on account of some political rivalry upon which an enquiry was initiated. The respondent No. 3 passed an order on 23.09.1997 against the petitioner under Section 40 Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, 1993 (Annexure P-1) and also directed that Rs. 241342 + 21227 be recovered from the petitioner. An appeal having being preferred against such an order, the respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 11.03.1998 (Annexure P-2) remanded the matter to follow the circular dated 30.10.1996 and an equiry was again conducted and respondent No. 3 after examining the matter, vide its order dated 21.09.1998 (Annexure P-3) dropped the enquiry against the petitioner. After period of about 11 years, undated complaint was made by the villagers of Village Somni to the Collector leveling the same allegations which was inquired into by the SDO in the earlier complaint. The again an enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner vide its order dated 25.11.2009 send the same to the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 upon which the 3 respondent No. 3 has opened the enquiry case and notices were issued to the petitioner deposit the above stated amount which is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the same set of allegations leveled in the subsequent complaint, already an enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 3 which led to dropping of the enquiry vide its order dated 21.09.1998 (Annexure P-3). Once the allegations against the petitioner was dropped and was given a clean-chit by the respondent No. 3, after a lapse of about 11 years, on a fabulous complaint on same set of allegations, the enquiry cannot be conducted and the SDO dethrone its power to issue such an order for recovery of amount against the petitioner. He submits that the order of respondent No. 3 is in-fact in the form of review of its earlier order of dropping the enquiry against the petitioner which could have been exercised only within a reasonable period of time and that too without any new facts emerging on record. Therefore, he submits that impugned proceedings Annexure P-6 may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that though the allegations which was a subject matter of earlier enquiry and the allegations which is subject matter of present enquiry are similar. However, the earlier enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 3 giving a go by to the petitioner was not done in accordance with law therefore, when the complaint was made by the petitioner in this respect, an again enquiry was conducted by the respondent No. 3 which led to initiation of proceedings Annexrue P-6 and demand of rupees from the petitioner. As the earlier enquiry was non-est without proper application of mind, it would not preclude the respondent No. 3 to agriviciate the proceedings (Annexure P-6) against the petitioner. 5. Ms. Kashyap learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that in compliance of order of respondent No. 3 conducted an enquiry against 4 the petitioner and submitted its report to respondent No. 3. She further submits that the proceedings conducted by the respondent No. 3 earlier was not in accordance with law as the petitioner was a party to it. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Perusal of Annexure P-1 which is an order dated 23.09.1997 passed by the respondent No. 3 exercising Power under Section 40 of the Act, 1993 indicates that there was certain allegations leveled against the petitioner like the petitioner has not distributed the old age destitute pension to various persons in accordance with law which amount to misconduct. Further allegations is that the petitioner has granted lease to various villagers. Further allegations which appears from the order is that he has allotted illegally some plots. Further allegations that forged domicile certificate was issued to various persons, embezzlement of food grains of midday meals was done. Resulting into it, he was removed from the post of Sarpanch and the SDO also observed that certain amount was to be recovered. Annexure P-2 is an order of the Collector in an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Act of 1993. The appeal was allowed by the Collector and the matter was remanded to the SDO to again constitute a committee to look after the complaints made and after following the due procedure, appropriate orders may be passed. Thereafter, Annexure P-3 proceedings was drawn by the SDO and after enquiry, the SDO has closed the case after satisfaction of the gram sabha and the recommendation of the presenting officer. This order was passed on 21.09.1998. It appears for almost 10 years nothing has happened. Annexure P-4 is a complaint made by the villagers to the Collector. Perusal of complaint would also indicates that the allegations of granting lease/ patta to villagers thereby earning monitory benefits and use of 4.7 quintal of paddy for himself was made. It appears that thereafter some enquiry was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer which was forwarded to the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, 5 proceedings Annexure P-6 was started by the SDO. Which resulted into recovery of the said amount. From the perusal of the documents appended with the petition, the allegations which was inquired into which led to starting of the proceedings Annexure P-6 for the almost similar allegations for which and already enquiry was conducted which resulted into dropping of the same at the recommendation of the presenting officer and satisfaction of the gram sabha. Though learned counsel for the respondents tried to persuade this Court that the earlier enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. But the fact remains that the State and respondent No. 4 neither any one person was not challenged the finding of the SDO (Annexure P-3) before any higher officer. It appears that again the enquiry was conducted by the respondent No. 4 almost of the similar set of allegations which has already inquired into earlier. It appears that the action of respondent No. 3 initiating the proceedings Annexure P-6 in the nature of review after almost 11 years. 8. Taking into consideration above stated facts, this Court is of the opinion that Annexure P-6 cannot sustain in the eye of law therefore, the same is hereby set aside. Consequently to follow. 9. Accordingly, petition thus allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan