1 2025:CGHC:49256 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 09.09.2025 Order passed on : 25.09.2025 WPS No. 3794 of 2018 1 - Shukhi Ram Yadu S/o Late Shri Gaindu Ram Yadu, Aged About 59 Years R/o House No. 478, Gali No. 3, Kasaridih, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Through Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1683 of 2021 1 - Sukhiram Yadu S/o Shri Gendu Ram Yadu Aged About 59 Years R/o Kasaridih, Gali No. 3, Ward No. 42, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Division- Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No. 3 (In W.P.S. No. 3794 of 2018) : Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Advocate (through V.C.) For Respondent No. 5 (In W.P.S. No. 1683 of 2021) : Mr. Shailesh Puriya, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. In W.P.S. No. 3794 of 2018, the petitioner challenges the recovery order dated 26.02.2018 for Rs. 8,45,649.58/- under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, alleging it was passed without due inquiry or jurisdiction and recovery of Rs. 88,129/- under Section 92 was also ordered without summons. The petitioner claims the order is illegal, malafide, and seeks quashing. In W.P.S. No. 1683 of 2021, the petitioner contests recovery proceedings initiated under Section 92, asserting that 3 Section 89 alone applies and only the Collector has jurisdiction. Recovery orders were passed despite this error, and the petitioner seeks correction of this legal mistake.. Through these writ petitions, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : - W.P.S. No. 3794 of 2018 - “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” W.P.S. No. 1683 of 2021 - “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly quash the order dated 17-10-2016 [Ann. P-1] & 24-10-2019 [Ann. P-2] 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner in WPS No. 3794 of 2018 is an Internal Audit and Taxation Officer, who previously held the position of Secretary of Village Panchayat 4 Rasmada. On 14.07.2014, he was suspended by respondent no. 3, and a charge-sheet was served on him on 12.08.2014. The departmental enquiry related to the charges is currently ongoing before the competent authority. Subsequently, on 06.02.2016, the petitioner was directed by notice to deposit Rs. 4,41,064.50/-, representing 50% of the alleged unrealistic expenditure amounting to Rs. 8,82,129/-. The notice also mentioned that recovery proceedings for the remaining half were initiated against the Ex- Sarpanch under Section 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993), who had already deposited his share. However, the petitioner contends that he was never served any notice or proceedings under Section 92, nor was any enquiry conducted to ascertain his liability before directing recovery. The petitioner promptly responded to the notice, explaining his suspension status at the time and highlighting that he was not given any opportunity of hearing before the recovery order was passed. Further notices dated 02.03.2016 reiterated the demand for recovery of Rs. 4,41,064.50/-, threatening consequences for non-compliance. The petitioner replied again reiterating the lack of any prior hearing or enquiry. Meanwhile, the departmental enquiry report was submitted on 06.06.2016 to respondent no. 3, and the Director Panchayat called for the representation of petitioner on the enquiry report via a show cause notice dated 09.05.2017. The petitioner submitted his reply, but the matter remains pending with the Director Panchayat. On 13.01.2017, respondent no. 3 5 forwarded a recovery table to respondent no. 2, requesting registration of a recovery case under Section 89 of the Act of 1993. Initially, recovery cases were also forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer, Durg, for recovery against two former Sarpanchs under Section 92. However, objections were raised that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer but was to be handled exclusively by the Collector under Section 89. Consequently, the case was redirected to respondent no. 2. The petitioner also filed WPS No. 2384/2018 challenging his suspension and departmental enquiry based on the same allegations, resulting in a Court order dated 19.03.2018 directing the competent authority to consider revocation of his suspension and to take a decision on the enquiry report. Despite this, on 26.02.2018, respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order directing recovery of Rs. 8,45,649.58/- from the petitioner under Section 89, which the petitioner claims is illegal, passed without jurisdiction, and in violation of due process and principles of natural justice. In WPS No. 1683 of 2021, the petitioner, who was working as Antrik Lekha Parikshan Adhikari at Janpad Panchayat Durg, retired on 31.12.2020. Earlier, Panchayat case No. 37 A 89/2013-14 had been registered under Section 92 before respondent no. 4, who directed recovery of Rs. 91,002.50/- from the petitioner by order dated 27.08.2014. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, respondent no. 3, which resulted in the modification of the recovery amount to Rs. 1,18,232.50/- by order dated 17.10.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a 6 revision before respondent no. 2 (Commissioner, Durg), which was dismissed by order dated 24.10.2019. The petitioner contends that the Collector erred in law by treating the matter as one under Section 92, whereas it should have been proceeded with under Section 89 of the Act. The petitioner argues that only the Collector is competent to initiate and adjudicate proceedings under Section 89, which mandates an independent enquiry respecting the principles of natural justice, including providing an opportunity of hearing. According to the petitioner, the Collector erroneously relied on a recovery table forwarded by respondent no. 6 and passed recovery orders without initiating proper proceedings under Section 89. The petitioner also refers to the WPS No. 3794/2018, where this Court granted interim relief by order dated 18.05.2018, further underscoring the illegality of the impugned recovery orders in his case. The orders dated 17.10.2016 and 24.10.2019 are illegal, arbitrary, and passed in gross violation of the statutory provisions, natural justice, and the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The recovery orders are not only procedurally flawed but also lack jurisdictional validity, as no proper enquiry was conducted to establish liability of petitioner, and he was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself before the orders were passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing two separate writ petitions challenging the illegal, arbitrary, and unlawful actions taken 7 against him under the guise of recovery proceedings and departmental enquiries. The entire sequence of actions initiated by the respondents is vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards, particularly the provisions of Section 89, which have been wholly ignored by the authorities. In Writ Petition No. 3794/2018, the petitioner was suspended on 14.07.2014 based on a charge sheet issued by the CEO, Zila Panchayat, alleging financial irregularities. Thereafter, on 06.02.2016, a recovery notice was issued directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 4,41,064/- towards 50% of the alleged expenditure of Rs. 8,82,129/-. This notice explicitly mentions that the Ex- Sarpanch has been proceeded against under Section 92 and has already deposited half of the amount. However, the petitioner was never served with any show cause notice under Section 92 or Section 89, nor was he afforded any opportunity to be heard before issuance of the recovery notice. The petitioner duly replied on 12.02.2016, highlighting this grave procedural lapse. The recovery notice dated 02.03.2016 was issued without following due process or affording the petitioner the opportunity of a proper hearing, thereby violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and the statutory mandates of the Act. Although a departmental enquiry was initiated, the report was forwarded only on 06.06.2016, and subsequent recovery orders passed by respondent No. 2 on 26.02.2018 directing recovery of Rs. 8,45,649.58/- were wholly without jurisdiction, as no inquiry under Section 89 was conducted before passing such orders. It is 8 submitted that the respondent No. 2 acted as an executing authority rather than a fact-finding authority and failed to conduct any independent inquiry, which is mandatory before ordering recovery under Section 92. In a similar vein, in Writ Petition No. 1683/2021, the petitioner was subjected to recovery proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) without the issuance of any show cause notice under Section 89 and without affording the petitioner any hearing. The order passed by SDO dated 27.08.2014 held the petitioner liable for recovery of Rs. 91,002.50/-, which was later modified by the Collector in an appeal to Rs. 1,18,232.50/-, based solely on a recovery table forwarded by respondent No. 6, without any independent examination of evidence or issuance of show cause notice. The revision preferred before the Commissioner was dismissed, perpetuating the illegal recovery. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2020, yet the illegal recovery proceedings and denial of his rightful retirement benefits and pension continue. It is submitted that the recovery proceedings initiated under Section 92 without prior and independent inquiry under Section 89 are null and void ab initio. The authorities failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act which require the competent authority, namely the Collector, to initiate an independent inquiry by issuing a show cause notice under Section 89 before initiating recovery proceedings. The impugned recovery orders, therefore, suffer from non-application of mind, denial of opportunity of hearing, and are in gross violation of principles of natural justice 9 and statutory procedure. The petitioner has been unfairly prejudiced and deprived of his legitimate retirement benefits and pensionary rights due to these flawed proceedings. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kadam Singh vs. CEO and others, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine MP 12064 and decision of this Court in the matter of Ajay Kurre vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No. 6990/2024), and Yogeshwari Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No. 4683/2025), it is submitted that the impugned recovery orders be quashed and set aside, and the petitioner be granted all pending retirement benefits, pensionary benefits, and consequential reliefs. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of any merit or substance and are liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself. The principal ground urged by the petitioners, that the action of the respondents is illegal and contrary to law due to the absence of a detailed inquiry as mandated under Section 89, does not withstand scrutiny. It is submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Collector, District Durg, and the learned Divisional Commissioner, Durg Division, are well reasoned, detailed, and passed strictly in accordance with law. These authorities have thoroughly appreciated the material evidence on record and have afforded due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before arriving at their 10 conclusions. As such, these orders do not warrant any interference by this Court. Further, it is submitted that a detailed inquiry and audit were conducted concerning the works sanctioned and carried out in Gram Panchayat Bhedsar during the period 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, when the petitioner was the Secretary and Milan Singh Thakur and Ramasara Thakur were the then Sarpanchs. The audit unearthed several irregularities and discrepancies, including unaccounted expenditures totaling substantial sums, absence of documentary proof such as bills and vouchers for large amounts, unauthorized expenditures exceeding sanctioned limits, and misapplication of funds received under various heads. These findings clearly establish that a detailed scrutiny and inquiry were conducted as required under law. It is submitted that under Section 66(4)(91) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, the signatures of both the Sarpanch and Secretary are jointly required for withdrawal of funds from the Gram Panchayat. Consequently, both office bearers bear equal responsibility for any illegality, irregularity, or financial loss caused to the Panchayat. The Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Durg, upon discovery of such discrepancies, rightly proposed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, District Durg, initiation of proceedings under Section 92 against the petitioner and the then Sarpanchs. Pursuant thereto, the competent authority registered the case and issued notices to the concerned parties. The Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, after providing full opportunity of hearing and after careful examination of the 11 evidence and documents on record, rightly passed the order dated 27.08.2014 for recovery of the loss caused to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner and the then Sarpanch challenged this order before the learned Collector, District Durg, by filing an appeal under Section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam read with the Rules framed thereunder. During the appeal proceedings, the petitioner was directed to produce vouchers and bills for adjustment of the amount sought to be recovered but failed to do so despite ample opportunity. Accordingly, the learned Collector upheld the order of the Sub Divisional Officer by the impugned order dated 17.10.2016 and directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Durg, to initiate necessary recovery proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner further challenged the order passed by Collector before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Durg Division, by way of revision. The learned Divisional Commissioner, after hearing the parties and following due process of law, dismissed the revision and affirmed the orders of the Collector. It is submitted that the contentions of petitioner regarding non-initiation of inquiry under Section 89 are merely technical and misconceived, as a detailed inquiry and scrutiny were, in fact, conducted and the petitioner was provided with full opportunity to defend his case at every stage. 5. Moreover, it is submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, is the prescribed authority under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, competent to take disciplinary action against the 12 Sarpanch and Secretary of a Gram Panchayat and to pass recovery orders in respect of financial loss caused to the Panchayat. The recovery proceedings were thus lawfully initiated and rightly carried out. In view of the above, it is clear that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are without any merit and ought to be dismissed at the threshold. The impugned orders are well reasoned, passed in accordance with law, and based upon proper appreciation of evidence after affording due opportunity to the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent – Zila Panchayat, Durg would submit that both writ petitions, WPS No. 3784/2018 and WPS No. 1683/2021, are liable to be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1996. The petitioner has failed to avail the said remedy in WPS No. 3784/2018 and has already exhausted it in WPS No. 1683/2021, where the orders passed by the subordinate authorities have been affirmed by appellate and revisional forums. Accordingly, both petitions deserve to be dismissed on this preliminary ground alone. In WPS No. 3784/2018, the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the competent authority under Section 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 is a well- reasoned and justified order. It has been passed after due appreciation of material on record and providing ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner, despite 13 being issued a notice dated 06.02.2018 regarding the recovery of embezzled funds, in connection with which 50% of the amount had already been deposited by the co-accused Sarpanch Ramkhilawan Yadav, failed to clarify his stand and only sought early disposal of the departmental proceedings and subsistence allowance. The subsequent failure of petitioner to respond to another notice dated 02.03.2016 under Section 89 further indicates his tacit acceptance of liability. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In WPS No. 1683/2021, the petitioner has challenged the recovery orders on technical grounds, alleging non-compliance with Section 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. However, a detailed audit and inquiry were indeed conducted in relation to the works undertaken during 2007–2010 under the Gram Panchayat Bhedsar. Serious financial irregularities and discrepancies were revealed, including unsupported entries of large expenditures and misapplication of public funds. 7. It is pertinent to note that under Section 66(4)(1) of the Adhiniyam, both the Sarpanch and Secretary are jointly responsible for all financial transactions, and therefore, the petitioner, being the then Secretary, is equally accountable. Pursuant to the audit findings, the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare proposed proceedings under Section 92 against the petitioner and the then Sarpanchs. The Sub-Divisional Officer, being the prescribed authority, initiated proceedings and, after due process and 14 hearing, passed the order dated 27.08.2014 directing recovery. The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal before the learned Collector, District Durg, but failed to submit any substantial documents or justification for the misappropriated amounts. Accordingly, the Collector upheld the order of recovery and directed further proceedings for enforcement of the order. The revision preferred by the petitioner before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Durg Division, was also dismissed after affording full opportunity of hearing and appreciation of facts and documents. The concurrent findings of the authorities clearly establish that due inquiry was held and financial liability was fixed based on cogent evidence. Hence, the attempt of the petitioner to raise technical objections at this stage is without merit. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the orders passed by the authorities in both matters are legal, well-reasoned, and passed after following due process of law. The petitioner was given full opportunity to be heard at every stage but failed to defend himself either by rebutting the audit findings or by producing supporting documents. Therefore, the present writ petitions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed in the interest of justice and public accountability. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 15 9. Under Sections 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, it is categorically provided that if any person is found to have caused loss, waste, or misappropriation of any money or other property belonging to the Panchayat, such person is liable to make good the loss. However, it is a mandatory requirement that the person concerned must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before any such liability is imposed. Sections 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam is extracted below for ready reference : “89. Liability of Panch etc. for loss, misappropriation. - (1) Every Panch, member, office-bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat shall be personally liable for loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other property of the Panchayat to which he has been a party or which has been caused by him by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties. The amount required for reimbursing such loss, waste, or misapplication shall be recovered by the prescribed authority; Provided that no recovery shall be made under this section unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) If the person concerned fails to pay the amount, such amount shall he recovered as arrears of land revenue and credited to the funds of the Panchayat concerned.” 10. After issuance of show-cause notice, if the person concerned fails to deliver the articles of money involved in the notice, prescribed 16 authority may cause him to be apprehended and may send him with a warrant in such form as may be prescribed, to be confined in a Civil Jail for a period not longer than 30 days. Sections 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam is extracted below for ready reference : “92. Power to recover records, articles and money. - (1) Where the prescribed authority is of the opinion that any person has unauthorisedly in his custody any record or article or money belonging to the Panchayat, he may, by a written order, require that the record or article or money be delivered or paid forthwith to the Panchayat, in the presence of such officer as may be appointed by the prescribed authority in this behalf. (2) If any person fails or refuses to deliver the record or article or pay the money as directed under sub-section (1), the prescribed authority may cause him to be apprehended and may send him with a warrant in such form as may be prescribed, to be confined in a Civil Jail for a period not longer than thirty days. (3) The prescribed authority may - (a) for recovering any such money direct that such money be recovered as an arrear of land revenue; and (b) for recovering any such record or articles issue a search warrant and exercise all such powers with respect thereto as may lawfully be exercised by a Magistrate under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974). 17 (4) No action under sub-section (1) or (2) or (3) shall be taken unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to the person concerned to show cause why such action should not be taken against him. (5) A person against whom an action is taken under this section shall be disqualified to be member of any Panchayat for a period of six years commencing from the initiation of such action.” 11. It is evident that the controversy in both writ petitions revolves around the legality of recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 89 and 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The primary grievance of petitioner is that the recovery orders have been passed without conducting a proper adjudication under Section 89 and without affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under the statute. 12. In the matter of Kadam Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no recovery shall be made under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Relevant para 10 and 11 are reproduced here-in-below :- “10. From bare perusal of section 89 it is clear that every Panch, member, office- bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat shall be personally liable for the loss, waste or misappropriation of any money or other property of the Panchayat to which he has been a party or which has 18 been caused by him by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties. The said amount is liable to be recovered by the prescribed authority. As per the proviso to this section no recovery shall be made under this section unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. That every Panch, member, office- bearer, officer or HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE (Shri Kadam Singh Vs. The CEO & Ors.) servant of Panchayat may be existing or ex or removed who has caused loss to the Panchayat by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties and required for reimbursing such loss, waste or misapplication and same can be recovered even after demitting office by them, as the case may be. The section 89 specifically provides that an adjudication must be done and as per the proviso reasonable opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to those persons. In the present case there is no such adjudication under section 89 of the Act. 11. After adjudication under section 89, Section 92 gives power to prescribed authority to recover the records, articles and money belonging to the Panchayat from the custody of any person. Under subsection(2) of section 92 if any person fails or refuses to deliver the record or article or pay the money then the prescribed authority may apprehend him with a warrant for sending him to civil jail and under subsection (3) may recover such money as arrears of land revenue. As such under section 92 powers are given to the prescribed authority for execution of the order passed under section 89. In the present case there is no adjudication under section 89, 19 therefore, there cannot be any execution proceeding or order order passed therein under section 92 of the Act. The prescribed authority has straight away on the basis of ex-parte enquiry report initiated recovery under section 92. In view of the above, the impugned show cause notice as well as the final order dated 8.10.2015 are hereby set aside. Needless to say that still respondents/authority shall be at liberty to take prompt action against the petitioner under section 89 & 92 of the Panchayat Act.” 13. Section 89 of the Act explicitly provides that liability for loss or misappropriation of Panchayat funds can be fixed only after a due inquiry, wherein the concerned person is given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 92, on the other hand, is essentially an execution mechanism for recovery of records, articles, or money belonging to the Panchayat and cannot be invoked independently without a prior adjudication under Section 89. This legal position has been clearly enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kadam Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that recovery under Section 92 cannot be sustained in the absence of a preceding adjudication under Section 89. 14. In WPS No. 3794 of 2018, the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 directing recovery of Rs. 8,45,649.58/- has been passed by respondent no. 2 without there being any independent adjudication under Section 89. The records reveal that though departmental proceedings were initiated, the inquiry report remained pending before the Director, Panchayat, and no final 20 decision was taken thereon. Nonetheless, recovery was ordered against the petitioner merely on the basis of audit objections and recovery tables, without issuance of a proper show cause notice or affording an opportunity of effective hearing. Such action is in direct violation of the mandate of Section 89 and the principles of natural justice. 15. Similarly, in WPS No. 1683 of 2021, the recovery proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Officer and later affirmed by the Collector and Commissioner, suffer from the same jurisdictional infirmity. The SDO, not being the prescribed authority under Section 89, lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 92 without prior adjudication. The appellate and revisional orders also proceed on the same misconception of law by treating Section 92 as an independent source of power. The concurrent findings, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 16. The contention of the respondents that audit and scrutiny were conducted and that the petitioner was afforded opportunity during appeal and revision cannot cure the foundational defect of non- compliance with Section 89. An adjudication fixing liability is a sine qua non before any recovery can be ordered. Opportunity in appeal or revision cannot substitute the initial requirement of notice and inquiry by the prescribed authority. Moreover, the pendency of departmental proceedings based on the same allegations further demonstrates the premature and arbitrary nature of the recovery orders. 21 17. In view of the above discussion, both sets of recovery orders impugned in WPS No. 3794 of 2018 and WPS No. 1683 of 2021 are found to be illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction. They are, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The respondents are, however, at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, by initiating proceedings under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, after affording due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 18. Consequently, both writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.02.2018, 17.10.2016, and 24.10.2019 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to release the pending retiral and pensionary benefits of petitioner forthwith, subject to any fresh proceedings initiated in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge