1 2025:CGHC:38777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1433 of 2023 Premlal Dhruw S/o Shri Basant Lal Dhruw Aged About 50 Years Working As Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kulhadighat, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner 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. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 05.08.2025 1 The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.06 18:36:21 +0530 2 “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 the impugned orders dated 06.04.2022 as well as orders dated 20.01.2021 and 03.03.2022. 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.” 2 By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents based on an audit report. A work order for road construction under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) was issued on 14.05.2013 in favour of Gram Panchayat, Kulhadighat. The work was duly completed and verified as per standards, following which the construction cost was paid to the beneficiaries. However, during an audit conducted in 2016-17, financial irregularities amounting to ₹1,21,842/- were alleged. Relying solely on this audit report and without conducting any enquiry or providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent authorities initiated recovery proceedings. On 20.01.2021, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.5 to recover the said amount from the Panchayat Secretary, listing Kulhadighat at serial No. 35. Subsequently, recovery instructions 3 were issued to deposit the amount in a specified bank account. Pursuant to these directions, respondent No.4 issued a recovery order on 06.04.2022 against the concerned Office Bearer of the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by this action, Damodar Sori, Ex- Sarpanch of Kulhadighat, filed Writ Petition (C) No. 289 of 2023, in which the Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 17.01.2023, stayed the effect and operation of the recovery order. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the impugned order (Annexure P/3) is bad in law, being arbitrary, unreasonable, and unwarranted. It is submitted that the work order for construction of a road under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme was issued in favour of Gram Panchayat, Kulhadighat, and the petitioner, in his official capacity, ensured completion of the said work as per the sanctioned plan. Upon completion, the work was duly verified and found to be within the prescribed standards, pursuant to which the bill towards construction cost was released and payment was made to the concerned beneficiaries. It is further submitted that the construction work was categorized as rough work, and any subsequent damage due to heavy rainfall cannot be attributed to the petitioner, nor can it constitute a ground for recovery from him. Despite the work being completed in 2013, the audit pointing out alleged irregularities was conducted after a lapse of 3-4 years. Based solely on the said audit report, recovery proceedings have 4 been initiated against the petitioner, which is wholly unjustified. The impugned recovery order has been issued without adherence to any statutory provision and without following the principles of natural justice. No notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and no inquiry was conducted to ascertain the veracity of the alleged irregularities. It is a settled legal position that an audit report, by itself, cannot be the sole basis for initiating recovery proceedings, particularly when no misconduct or irregularity has been found or alleged during the petitioner’s tenure. Moreover, no complaint or objection had ever been raised against the petitioner at the relevant time. The impugned recovery has been initiated after an unreasonable delay of more than eight years from the date of execution of work, which makes the action not only arbitrary but also barred by delay and laches. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that as per the list/communication given to the SDO (Revenue) by the CEO, an intimation has been given for recovery of amount from various Office bearers of the Gram Panchayats on the basis of the social audit conducted by the audit team where several irregularities were found when the Office beareres/Panchayats were working in the the Gram Panchayats. She further submits that after receipt of the communication by the CEO, the SDO (Revenue) has drawn a proceeding under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj 5 Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, “the Adhiniyam”) and notices have been issued under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam to the petitioner as well as the other Panchs or Office bearers of the Gram Panchayats. She would argue that that there is a provision under Section 89 that before passing any order of recovery, proper opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to the office bearers of the Gram Panchayats, accordingly the show cause notice has been issued under the said provision to provide opportunity of hearing to the Office bearers and to observe the principles of natural justice before passing any order in the list communicated by the CEO. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6 Perusal of the pleadings would show that the CEO has sent a communication to the SDO for recovery of amount from various office bearers/Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats, as per the social audit conducted by the audit team. The SDO, in pursuance to the said communication/list provided by the CEO, has drawn proceeding under Section 89 and issued notice to the petitioner to explain how the amount as stated by the audit team as well as the CEO would not be recovered from them. 7 It appears from the notice (Annexure P/3) which is under challenge by the petitioner is only a notice as per the provision under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam and the petitioner will get 6 opportunity of hearing to explain about the irregularities and recovery sought from her. 8 As per the statement of the learned State counsel that the proceeding under Section 89 has been drawn against the petitioner and only after receiving of the reply to the said show cause notice, the final decision has to be passed by the SDO (Revenue). 9 In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner may file reply to the notice under Section 89 and explain the irregularities alleged against her and the SDO is directed to consider the same in accordance with the provision under Section 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam and pass a detailed and speaking order regarding the recovery of the amount alleged against the petitioner. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh