1 CGHC010238132020 2026:CGHC:32103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2646 of 2020 1 - Pushpa Toppo W/o Shri Jivan Toppo Aged About 32 Years Ex- Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Ghorgadi, Tahsil And Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujgunj, Chhattisgarh, R/o Ghorgadi, Tahsil And Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujgunj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujgunj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujgunj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujgunj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujgunj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Station House Officer Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujgunj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.07.30 10:47:21 +0530 2 7 - Rajeshwar Lakda S/o Eilas Lakda Aged About 38 Years Secretary Gram Panchayat, Ghorgadi, Presently Attached In The Office Of Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur, Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujgunj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. with Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the notice dated 05.09.2019 (Annexure P/4) issued by CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur for recovery of Rs.33,36,245/-. 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to quash the memo dated 24.10.2019 (Annexure P/6) for registration of FIR against the petitioner. 10.3. Any other relief, deemed fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, Ghorgadi, Tahsil & Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur. She was elected in the year 2014 and the tenure of the petitioner as Sarpanch came to an end in the year 2019. He contended that one proceeding has been initiated for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,36,245/- vide letter dated 05.09.2019 issued by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad 3 Panchayat, Rajpur to the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Rajpur. He also pointed out that one proceeding under Section 40 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 was also initiated against her which is evident from the order sheet dated 04.11.2019 (Annexure P/8). He contended that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner has been closed by the Collector, District Balrampur vide order dated 26.06.2025 observing that the tenure of the petitioner has already come to an end. Order of Collector has not been further challenged by any of the respondents before any authority. 3. He submits that at this stage grievance of the petitioner is that report is called for by the Sub Divisional Officer (R) is still to be receipt from Tahsildar, Rajpur & Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur and therefore till the enquiry report is received and is considered by Sub Divisional Officer (R) some interim protection may be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that proceedings under Section 40 and recovery proceeding are two different proceedings initiated against the petitioner. He submits that there is no notice of recovery to the petitioner but letter is written by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur to the Sub Divisional Officer (R) to conduct an enquiry and to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The Sub Divisional Officer (R) has called for an enquiry report from Tahsildar & Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur. He 4 however submits that no report is submitted pursuant to the document Annexure P/10. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents available on record. 6. Undisputedly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 has been dropped by the Collector, District Balrampur vide its order dated 26.06.2025 in revision case observing that there is no requirement of continuing the proceedings under Section 40 as Sarpanch has already completed her tenure. This order is not put to challenge by respondents. So far as the recovery of loss suffered by the Village Panchayat of sum of Rs.33,36,245/- as forming part of Annexure P/4, i.e. letter dated 05.09.2019 written by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur to Sub Divisional Officer (R), Rajpur is concerned, this letter is only request made to the competent authority for initiating the recovery proceedings. From Annexure P/10 letter dated 02.07.2020, it appears that the Sub Divisional Officer (R) has called for the enquiry report from Tahsildar, Rajpur and Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur for submitting report. There is a provision to fix Liability of Panch etc. for loss, misappropriation under Section 89 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and further under provisions of Section 92, Power to recover record, articles and money is also envisaged. In both the provisions, the 5 authority is the prescribed authority who is the Sub Divisional Officer (R). 7. From the document enclosed along with the writ petition it is apparent that the letter is forwarded by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur to Sub Divisional Officer (R), Rajpur who is prescribed authority under the Act of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when the proceeding is already initiated by the prescribed authority/competent authority and it is still to be finalized, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting respondent No.4/Sub Divisional Officer (R) to complete proceeding initiated by it on the letter of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur following due process of law and granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till the enquiry report is received and the liability is crystallized, the interim order granted in this writ petition dated 18.11.2020 with respect to Annexure P/6 letter dated 24.10.2019 shall remain in force. The Sub Divisional Officer (R) is directed to complete proceeding initiated by him expeditiously. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi