1 2026:CGHC:23287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3831 of 2021 1 - Smt. Upa Singh Das W/o Sukumar Das Aged About 56 Years Ex- Sarpanch Village Panchayat Chandipur P.S. 36 Janpad Panchayat Koilybeda, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Kanker District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kanker District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Koilybeda District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Pakhanjur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. J. N. Nande with Mr. Ankit Bhoi, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1, 2 & 5. : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.3 & 4. : Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Gouraha, Advocate Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.05.18 16:06:28 +0530 2 SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 15/05/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned award/order dated 25/08/2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.05, in the interest of justice as it is bad and arbitrary in the eyes of law. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was Ex-Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat Chandipur, P.V.36, Janpad Panchayat Koilybeda, Tehsil Pakhanjur. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Koilybeda had issued a list for recovery of amount from various village panchayats, on the basis of social audit report. In the list, Janpad Panchayat has determined amount of Rs.15,925/- to be recovered from Village Panchayat Chandipur holding liable including the Panchayat Secretary, Rojgar Sahayak, Technical Assistant and Assistant Development Extension Officer of the Village Panchayat, Chandipur vide Annexure P/2. The villagers of Village Panchayat, Chandipur have filed compliant against 3 respondent No.4 leveling certain allegation of financial irregularities against Panchayat Secretary of mis-appropriation of the amount of MGNREGA Scheme. After getting the knowledge of the compliant, the Chief Executive Officer, the officer bearers of Village Panchayat, Chandipur have got prepared a panchanama report mentioning that all works undertaken by village panchayat during tenure of the petitioner has been successfully completed and therefore, the complaint made against the petitioner is baseless. It is also submitted that in the social audit report there is mentioning of completion of the work allotted. The social audit report was verified by District Level Committee including the social audit report which is subject matter of this case. Overlooking the recommendation made by the Chhattisgarh social audit unit, respondent No.5 has issued the impugned order/notice dated 25.08.2021 which is per-se illegal and arbitrary. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that no action could be taken under the provisions of Section 92(1) unless opportunity of hearing is given under Section 92(4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and therefore, the notice be quashed. It is also contention of counsel for the petitioner that from the contents of the social audit report it is appearing that respondent No.5 was having no authority under law to pass any order or to impose any penalty. The latter part of notice issued by the respondent No.5 is without jurisdiction. 4 3. Learned State counsel opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submits that upon considering the social audit report whereby, the recovery is also proposed against the petitioner as it is reflecting from the social audit report, hence, there is no illegality and arbitrary- ness on the part of respondent No.5 in issuing the notice under Section 92(1). Upon putting specific query to learned counsel for the State as to whether any prior notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing notice under Section 92(1) giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, he contended that along with the reply no such document has been filed, but pleading has been made in para-3 of the reply that notice dated 24.07.2021 was issued to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 & 4 would submits that action under challenge in the writ petition is against the respondent No.5 for whom he is not appearing. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 6. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to issuance of notice under Section 92(1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. One of the ground which is raised by the counsel for the petitioner is with regard to jurisdiction of the authority to issue notice under Section 92(1) on the facts as 5 mentioned therein. Section 92(1) is relevant in the facts of the case, and therefore, it 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 he appointed by the prescribed authority in this behalf.” 7. From the heading of provisions under Section 92 would show that it talks of the power of the authority to recover records, articles and money and further in sub section 1 of Section 92, it mentions that recovery of records, articles and money which the office bearers or employee of panchayat has kept with him unauthorizedly. 8. The content of notice Annexure P/1, dated 25.03.2021 would show that in the notice there is no mention of the reasons as provided under Section 92 for recovery of records, articles and money, but the reasons which is appearing in Annexure P/1, notice is with regard to mis-appropriation of the funds allotted to the Village Panchayat. In the notice there is no mention that petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 24.07.2021 as pleaded by the respondent-State in their reply and the petitioner fail to submit explanation/reply to said show cause notice. In absence of specific mentioning of issuance of 6 the show cause notice as provided under Section 92(4), the reply submitted by the respondent-State pleading that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.07.2021 is not acceptable. 9. Another important aspect of the case is that recovery sought for an amount of Rs.18,97,615.80 from the petitioner alleging financial irregularities for the purpose of recovering the amount which has been misappropriated or there is irregularity in the account can be under Section 89 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The provision under Section 89 is relevant and therefore, it 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 be recovered as arrears of land revenue and credited lo the funds of the Panchayat concerned.” 10. Perusal of proviso to Section 89(1) provides for before passing an order of recovery, the person against whom the 7 recovery sought is to be granted reasonable opportunity of being heard means the show cause notice is required to be issue to such person, which in the facts of the case has not been issued. 11. In the above facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the recovery if any can be made only under Section 89 and not under Section 92. The notice issued to the petitioner Annexure P/1 dated 25.08.2021 under Section 92(1) therefore is liable to be and is hereby quashed, reserving liberty with the respondent authorities to proceed in accordance with law if they so desire. 12. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi