1 CGHC010233962022 2026:CGHC:40601 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3165 of 2022 Pankaj Harpal S/o Shri Gopbandhu Harpal Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Purnapani, Block And Tehsil And Police Station Deobhog, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, Presently Elected Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Purnapani, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development , Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Gariyaband District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Deobhog, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Deobhog, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.22 10:25:42 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondents 4 & 5 : : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate Mr. Ayaz Naved, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the Petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus and quash the impugned orders dated-18.03.2021, 24.05.2022 and 27.12.2021 (Annexure-P/1). 10.3 That, Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation and effect of the order dated-24.05.2022, till the pendency of the instant writ petition. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 2,55,750/- deposited by petitioner against recovery amount proposed against him. 10.5 Any other relief which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Purnapani, having contested the election along with other candidates and secured the highest 3 number of votes. A complaint was lodged before Respondent No. 4 alleging irregular payments by Sarpanchas and Secretaries across various Gram Panchayats, including Gram Panchayat Purnapani, in connection with the installation of solar lights. It was further alleged that the installation work was not executed through the CREDA, which is the authorized State agency for solar light installation. Respondent No. 4 constituted an inquiry committee to investigate the alleged irregularities in solar light installations and the associated payments. The inquiry committee submitted its report to Respondent No. 4, which was subsequently forwarded to Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 for appropriate action. Acting solely on the basis of the aforementioned inquiry report, Respondent No. 5, vide order dated 06.01.2021, directed the recovery of an amount of Rs.5,11,500/- jointly from the petitioner and the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Purnapani. This order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and the matter was forwarded to Respondent No. 3 for further action. On the very same day, i.e. 06.01.2021, Respondent No. 3 registered a case against the petitioner and the Secretary under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and issued a notice. Appearing before Respondent No. 3 on 24.02.2021, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply along with the Resolution of Gram Panchayat Purnapani, categorically denying all allegations levelled against him. Subsequently, vide order dated 18.3.2021, Respondent No.3 passed an order of recovery for an amount of 4 Rs.2,55,750/- from the petitioner. The Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2021. After the dismissal of the Revision, Respondent No. 3 initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner deposited a portion of his share of the alleged recovery amount of Rs.2,55,750/-. However, Respondent No. 3 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 24.05.2022, removing/terminating the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and further disqualifying him for a period of six years from contesting elections under Sections 92(1), 92(2), and 92(5) of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, without issuing any show-cause notice or granting an opportunity of personal hearing. Respondent No. 3 further issued arbitrary directions to arrest the petitioner and commit him to civil prison on the grounds of non-deposit of the full recovery amount. The petitioner’s family members subsequently arranged and deposited the remaining balance of Rs.2,55,750/-, whereupon the petitioner was released from custody. It is contended that the orders dated 18.03.2021 and 24.05.2022 passed by Respondent No. 3, as well as the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by Respondent No. 2, are illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable in law and passed in gross violation of statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. Hence, this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the interim stay order dated 21.7.2022 passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has already completed his tenure as 5 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Purnapani. Therefore, the relief sought regarding his continuation in/restoration to the post has rendered infructuous. However, as regards the relief seeking refund of the recovered amount, learned counsel submits that the petitioner had duly installed the solar lights. In pursuance of the directions of this Court to ascertain whether the solar lights in question are functional and in order, the concerned Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has filed an affidavit confirming that the solar lights installed by the petitioner comply with the required standards and are in proper order. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to a full refund of the amount recovered from him. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the recovered amount cannot be refunded to the petitioner, as the petitioner deviated from the directions issued by the State Government. He submits that the petitioner was specifically directed to procure the solar lights through the CREDA, which direction was not complied with. Hence, owing to this procedural non-compliance, the petitioner is not entitled to any refund. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 4 & 5 also submits that in view of the specific directions issued by the State Government, the petitioner was obligated to procure the requisite solar lights exclusively from the authorized agency i.e. CREDA and not from a private vendor. Since the petitioner failed to comply with these binding instructions, the amount already recovered from him cannot be refunded. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the 6 documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection. 7. So far as the challenge of the petitioner to his removal and disqualification from the post of Sarpanch is concerned, the same has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time, as the petitioner has already completed his full tenure under the operation of the interim stay order granted by this Court. 8. As regards the remaining relief seeking refund of the recovered amount of Rs.2,55,750/- on the ground that functional solar lights were duly installed, the respondents have disputed his entitlement, contending that he failed to follow official procedure and violated binding State instructions requiring procurement exclusively through CREDA. 9. Whether the procurement of solar lights from an unauthorized vendor constituted a minor procedural mistake or caused an actual financial loss and whether the public exchequer derived full value for the expenditure incurred, involve disputed questions of fact. Such factual disputes cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court/competent judicial forum, in respect of the claim for refund of Rs.2,55,750/-, by instituting appropriate civil proceedings in accordance with law. 7 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the monetary claim and the competent court shall decide the matter on its own merits based on the evidence led by the parties, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Writ Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay