1 2025:CGHC:1439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1677 of 2018 • Sanjay Rawate S/o S/o Hemlal Rawate, Aged About 44 Years Posted As Technical Assistant, Janpad Panchayat Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3. Lokpal, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Addl.Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat North Bastar Kanker dated 07.11.2017 (Annexure- P/1), whereby an order of recovery of Rs.60,000/- was passed against the Ex. Sarpanch – Smt. Manjulata, Secretary – Arjun Sevta and Technical Assistant – Sanjay Rawte (petitioner herein). They were held liable for 30%-30% of the said amount and liability of 10% Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 was fastened upon Rozgar Sahayak. The order was passed by respondent No. 2 pursuant to an award passed by the Lokpal dated 21.09.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by respondent No. 2 while passing the order impugned. She would further contend that the authority concerned failed to describe the role played by the petitioner in the commission of financial irregularities. She would further contend that the award passed by the Lokpal was never communicated to the petitioner, therefore, the same could not be challenged in this petition. She would further submit that the award, if any, passed by the Lokpal was a mere recommendation and there was no direction to pass an order of recovery. She would pray to set aside the order Annexure- P/1. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the order Annexure- P/1 dated 07.11.2017 was passed by respondent No. 2 pursuant to an award passed by the Lokpal dated 21.09.2017. He would further submit that the petitioner has not challenged the award in the present petition as the foundation of the order Annexure- P/1 was the award passed by Lokpal. He would also submit that the petitioner and other office bearers of the Gram Panchayat committed irregularities in the construction of toilets, therefore, an order was passed for recovery of Rs.60,000/- and the liability of the petitioner was assessed to the tune of Rs.18,000/- only. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 5. From a perusal of the order, it is apparent that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working on the post of Technical Assistant at Janpad Panchayat Charama, District North Bastar Kanker. A complaint was made before the Lokpal and after due inquiry, an award was passed against the petitioner and other office bearers on the ground that there were irregularities in the construction of toilets at Gram Panchayat Parsoda. Pursuant to the award dated 21.09.2017, respondent No. 2 passed the order against the petitioner, Ex. Sarpanch- Smt. Manjulata, Secretary- Arjun Sevta and one Ramakant Gota, Rozgar Sahayak for recovery of Rs.60,000/- and the liability of the petitioner was assessed to the tune of 30% as per the order. 6. In the present petition, the petitioner has not challenged the award passed by the Lokpal dated 21.09.2017 which is the foundation of the order dated 07.11.2017. The stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner is not available to the petitioner as an inquiry was conducted by the Lokpal and thereafter an award was passed. Respondent No. 2 acted as an executing authority and issued order pursuant to the award passed by the Lokpal dated 21.09.2017. The petitioner ought to have challenged the award passed by the Lokpal dated 21.09.2017, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 7. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti