1 CGHC010301432018 2026:CGHC:27662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6460 of 2018 1 - Smt. Asha Patel W/o Shri Tulsiram Patel Aged About 30 Years Occupation Ex Technical Assistant At Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Saraypali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL For respondent No.3 : Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Ord er On Board 06.07.2026 1) Heard. 2) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the order impugned dated 02.07.2018 and 03.08.2018 (Annexure P-1& P-2) passed by the respondent 2 No.3. 2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly please to call the entire record leading to issuance of the impugned order from the possession of the respondents. 3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 3) Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant vide order dated 16.11.2011 under respondent No.3 on contract. Thereafter, her services were extended from time to time. A complaint was made before the Collector, District Mahasamund alleging that the petitioner, Sarpanch, Secretary, Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat, Salhejhariya had committed financial irregularities by forging the muster rolls for construction work of the approach road. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and other office-bearers, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner had committed financial irregularities to the tune of Rs.2,87,666/-. Show-cause notice was duly replied by the petitioner, wherein, she denied allegations. 4) The matter was examined by the Ombudsman, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Mahasamund, wherein, the allegations were found proved and an order for recovery of Rs.3,58,716/- was passed against the petitioner and other office-bearers vide order dated 18.08.2017. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was partly allowed and only the recovery of 15 days’ salary was recommended and other recommendations were set aside vide 3 order dated 08.11.2017. 5) Pursuant to the order passed by the Ombudsman,Appellate Authority, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchyat, Mahasamund, after due inquiry, passed an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.86,299.80 against the petitioner vide order dated 02.07.2018. 6) Subsequently, the petitioner was removed from services by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchyat, Mahasamund vide order dated 03.08.2018 in the light of order passed by the Ombudsman, Appellate Authority dated 08.11.2017. 7) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the Ombudsman, vide order dated 08.11.2017, made various recommendations including the recommendation of recovery of Rs.3,58,716/-; deduction of one month’s salary and initiation of departmental inquiry and the petitioner was also held to be negligent. He would contend that the Ombudsman, Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.11.2017 set aside the recommendations No.1,2,3 & 5. He would submit that a direction was issued to the petitioner herein to deposit salary of 15 days. It is argued that pursuant to order passed by the Ombudsman, Appellate Authority, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and subsequently, order of recovery to the tune of Rs.86,299.80 has been passed vide order dated 02.07.2018 against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Chief Executive Officer, 4 Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund vide order dated 03.08.2018 on the basis of the order passed by the Ombudsman/Appellate Authority removed the petitioner from services. He would contend that as there was no recommendation with regard to removal from services, order passed by respondent No.3 is arbitrary and bad in law. It is also argued that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing while passing order of recovery dated 02.07.2018. He would pray to allow this petition. 8) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the Ombudsman, Appellate Authority affirmed recommendation No.4 issued by the Ombudsman, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Mahasamund, wherein, the petitioner and office-bearers were found negligent. They would further submit that the petitioner failed to challenge said part of order before appropriate Forum and thus, the order attained finality. They would further contend that respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice and conducted an inquiry with regard to financial irregularities committed by the office-bearers of Panchayat and thereafter, order dated 02.07.2018 (Annexure P/1) was passed. They would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 9) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5 10) In the present case, there were various allegations against the petitioner, Sarpanch, Secretary and Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat, Salhejhariya with regard to financial irregularities. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.10.2017, which was duly replied by her. A complaint was also made to the Ombudsman and vide order dated 08.11.2017, recommendations were made for recovery of Rs.3,58,716/- equally from all office- bearers and for initiation of departmental inquiry. They were held to be negligent and further, a direction was issued to take action in accordance with Section 25 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. The Appellate Authority set aside the recommendations No.1,2,3 & 5 but at the same time, affirmed recommendation No.4, whereby the petitioner and the office-bearers of Panchayat were held to be negligent. A recommendation was made against the petitioner to deposit 15 days’ salary with the Treasury. The order passed by the Ombudsman, Appellate Authority dated 08.11.2017 has never been challenged by the petitioner before the higher Forum and thus, it attained finality. 11) Perusal of the return filed by the respondents would show that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter inquiry was conducted. Physical inspection was done and a Panchnama was prepared. The allegations with regard to financial irregularities were found to be proved, and therefore, an order of recovery dated 02.07.2018 was issued whereby the petitioner has 6 been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.86,299.80. Subsequently, pursuant to the order passed by the Ombudsman, Appellate Authority dated 08.11.2017, respondent No.3 removed the petitioner from services. 12) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been held negligent in discharge of her duties and such finding has attained finality as it has not been challenged by the petitioner before the higher Forum. 13) Having considered the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 14) Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/ (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha