1 CGHC010007452023 2026:CGHC:32603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 311 of 2023 • Janhavi Dhruw W/o Domuram Dhruw, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Siharlati, Tahsil Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhatitsgarh. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 5. The Chief Executive Officer, (Revenue), Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For State/Respondents No.1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 29/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner. DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 10.2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned order- cum-notice dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) as well as orders dated 20.01.2021 and 03.03.2022 (Annexure P/4 & P/5). 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is an Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhaismundi, District Gariyaband, has called in question the legality and validity of the notice-cum-order dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.4 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.88,358/- from the petitioner, as also the order dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure P/4) issued by respondent No.3 directing recovery from the concerned Sarpanchs on the basis of the audit report and the consequential communication/list dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure P/5) issued by respondent No.5 forwarding the proposed recovery list to respondent No.4. The challenge is primarily on the ground that the impugned recovery proceedings have been initiated solely on the basis of the audit report, without holding any enquiry, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the petitioner's tenure as Sarpanch from 2010 to 2015, a road construction work under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme was executed pursuant to the work order dated 27.09.2013. After completion of the work, the same was duly verified by the competent authorities, found to be satisfactory and the payment was accordingly released. It is submitted that after the petitioner had demitted office, an audit conducted in the year 2016-17 pointed out an alleged irregularity of Rs.88,358/-, on the basis whereof the impugned recovery proceedings have been initiated. It is further 3 contended that no enquiry was conducted, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before directing recovery and there is no statutory provision authorising recovery from an Ex-Sarpanch merely on the basis of an audit objection. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the audit conducted by the competent authority revealed financial irregularities in the execution of the work undertaken during the petitioner's tenure as Sarpanch. Based on the audit report, respondent No.3 issued the order dated 20.01.2021, pursuant to which respondent No.5 forwarded the list of proposed recoveries on 03.03.2022, and thereafter respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice- cum-order dated 06.04.2022 directing recovery of the amount from the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned action has been taken in accordance with the audit findings and the writ petition is devoid of merit. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the pleadings would show that on the basis of the audit conducted for the year 2016-17, an alleged irregularity of Rs.88,358/- was pointed out in respect of the work executed during the petitioner's tenure as Sarpanch. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.3 issued the order dated 20.01.2021 directing recovery from the concerned Sarpanchs, which was followed by the communication dated 03.03.2022 issued by respondent No.5 forwarding the proposed recovery list to respondent No.4. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice-cum-order dated 06.04.2022 directing recovery of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner. 8. It appears from the material available on record that the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 has been issued solely on the basis of the audit report and the consequential communications dated 20.01.2021 and 03.03.2022. There is nothing on record to indicate that, before directing recovery, any 4 independent enquiry was conducted or any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned recovery order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned notice-cum-order dated 06.04.2022 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from proceeding afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, after conducting an appropriate enquiry and affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and if the proceedings have been concluded by the concerned authorities, the concerned authorities are directed to inform the same to the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid observations, instant petition stands disposed of. 11. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Deepti Jha