1 2026:CGHC:20274 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 153 of 2023 1 - Umashankar Sahu S/o Shri Chhatturam Sahu Aged About 37 Years Occupation-Ex-Computer Operator, Primary Sewa Sahakari Samiti Bhatgaon Center Dhangaon, Registration Number 1416 District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara At Present, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Santosh Gupta S/o Shri Kailash Nath Gupta Aged About 56 Years Occupation-Service, Posted As Society Manager Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur, Presently Posted At Nodal Office Balodabazar,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rupesh Sahu S/o Shri Geetaram Sahu Aged About 34 Years Occupation-Ex-Service Computer Operator, Primary Sewa Sahakari Samiti Bhatgaon Registration Number 1416 Center Bhatgaon, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara At Present, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ganesh Ram Sahu S/o Shri Bhukhau Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years Occupation-Ex-In-Charge, Manager, Primary Sewa Sahakari RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Samiti Bhatgaon Registration Number 1416 District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara At Present, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ramnarayan Jayswal S/o Late Shri Hariram Jayswal Aged About 56 Years Occupation-Assistant Clerk Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bhatgaon Registration Number 1416 R/o Village- Bhatgaon Thana And Tehsil Bhatgaon, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara At Present, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Atal Nagar, New Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Joint Registrar Co-Operative Society Raipur Division Raipur, In- Front Of Lalganga Shopping Mall Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Secretary Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, Gandhi Chowk, Near Kalibadi Chowk, Nagar Nirman Bhawan Road Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies,, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Branch Manager District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited Raipur, Branch Bhatgaon, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh Now District - Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 7 - The Nodal Officer District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited Raipur, Branch Bhatgaon, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh Now District - Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Ramkumar Aditya S/o Shri Teekaram Aditya Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Bhatgaon, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh Now District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4, 6 & 7 : Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned orders dated 21.11.2022, 10.02.2021 and 03.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 5 and 4. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to call for the entire record from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to direct the Respondent no. 2 to decide the complaint case No. 148/2016 pending since 24.10.2016 registered on the complaint of respondent No. 8. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted with 4 heavy cost.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioners were working in various capacities such as Computer Operator, Samiti Prabandhak, Fad Prabhari and In-charge Society Manager in Prathmik Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bhatgaon (Registration No. 1416) during the year 2013–14; that during the said period, certain irregularities relating to paddy procurement, including shortage of paddy and manipulation in khasra numbers and land areas of agriculturists, came to light, whereupon the concerned authorities, including the Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, issued communications directing recovery of the loss and initiation of proceedings that upon inquiry, respondent No. 8 (Ramkumar Aditya) was found responsible for the irregularities and consequent loss, and his services were terminated vide order dated 15.03.2017 that further inquiries conducted by different authorities, including a preliminary inquiry and an inquiry by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, also revealed that respondent No. 8, along with certain others, was responsible for the shortage and loss, while also observing lapses on the part of bank officials that another inquiry was conducted by officers of the District Cooperative Central Bank, and a report was submitted on 04.08.2016 that despite the findings of the inquiries, respondent No. 8 lodged a complaint before the Lokayukt on 24.10.2016 against the petitioners and others, and the matter is still pending consideration without any final order or direction for registration of 5 FIR that during pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent authorities, particularly respondents No. 4 and 5, issued impugned orders/letters dated 03.08.2021, 10.02.2021, and 21.11.2022 directing registration of FIR against the petitioners, allegedly in compliance with directions of the Lokayukt, though no such direction has been issued; that similarly situated persons had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 3776/2021, wherein interim protection against coercive action was granted and pursuant thereto, no coercive steps were taken against them and that the petitioners, being aggrieved by the illegal and premature direction for registration of FIR, have approached this Hon’ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders directing registration of FIR are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, as the same are purportedly based on directions of the Lokayukt, whereas no such direction has been issued by the Lokayukt in the pending complaint proceedings; it is contended that multiple inquiries have already been conducted by competent authorities, including departmental and independent inquiries, in which the petitioners were not found responsible for the alleged shortage of paddy, and rather respondent No. 8 has been consistently held liable for the loss; it is further submitted that the petitioners had no authority in relation to financial transactions or transfer of payments, as such powers were vested with the bank officials, and therefore fastening liability upon the 6 petitioners is wholly unjustified; it is also urged that recovery proceedings against the responsible persons are already pending before the competent authority, and thus initiation of criminal proceedings at this stage, without any final finding or recommendation by the Lokayukt, is premature and amounts to abuse of process of law; it is contended that the Deputy Registrar, instead of submitting the required report before the Lokayukt, has erroneously proceeded to direct registration of FIR, which is beyond his jurisdiction; reliance is placed on the interim protection granted by this Hon’ble Court in similar matters, and it is submitted that the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by such orders; it is therefore prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and appropriate protection be granted to the petitioners against coercive action. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, upon a preliminary examination of the records and material available, it prima facie appears that there has been misappropriation of a substantial amount of public funds in relation to the procurement of paddy, involving serious financial irregularities and procedural lapses; it is further contended that such acts not only indicate possible misconduct on the part of the persons involved but also warrant a thorough inquiry and appropriate action in accordance with law to safeguard public interest and ensure accountability. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent authorities, namely respondents No. 4 to 7, to consider and examine the case of the petitioners afresh in the light of the earlier orders passed in their favour, wherein the petitioners were not found guilty, and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law after due consideration of the material on record. 7. The petitioners are also directed to appear before the concerned respondent authorities as and when required, and upon such appearance, the said authorities shall be at liberty to consider the matter independently and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations or findings recorded in earlier proceedings. 8. The concerned respondent authorities are also directed to examine the role of the persons involved in the present matter and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; particularly in view of the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that there appears to have been misappropriation of a substantial amount of public funds in relation to the procurement of paddy. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat