Digitally 2025:CGHC:59300 signed by SHAYNA NAFR KADRI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3183 of 2023

1 - Khublal Dhruw Son Of Shri Chaitram Dhruw, Aged About 43 Years Working As Technical Assistant, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

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 Chhattisgarh

4 - The Sub-Divisonal Officer (Revenue), Mainpur, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Kishan Kumar Sonkar, appearing on behalf of Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Nikhil Meshram, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

05.12.2025

1 The instant writ petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5 (Annexure P/1) whereby without affording any opportunity of hearing, without adhering any provisions of law, without any jurisdiction, in complete violation of principles of natural justice, the respondent no. 5 has issued an order for recovery of Rs.

2,23,947/- against the petitioner.

2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure P/1).

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 The petitioner is serving as a Technical Assistant in Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, and has been performing his duties sincerely and without any complaint. In the year 2013-14, several construction works were sanctioned under different Gram Panchayats, which were duly completed as per prescribed standards and verified by the authorities, leading to release of payments to the beneficiaries. However, during an audit conducted in 2016-17, certain irregularities were pointed out, and on that basis, recovery orders dated 20.01.2021, 03.03.2022, and 06.04.2022 were issued against the concerned Sarpanch and Secretaries, some of whom have challenged the same before the Hon’ble Court, resulting in interim stay orders. Despite this, the respondent no. 5 has suddenly issued an impugned recovery order proposing recovery of Rs. 2,23,947/- against the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without having jurisdiction or authority to initiate disciplinary action against him, leading to the filing of the present petition.

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned recovery order is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, as the works in question were executed in 2013 under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, duly verified as per prescribed standards, and payments were accordingly released to the beneficiaries; the alleged irregularities were pointed out only after 3–4 years in an audit, which by itself cannot be the basis for recovery, particularly when the works were rough in nature and might have been damaged due to heavy rainfall, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible; further, for the same works, recovery orders issued against the concerned Sarpanch and Secretaries have already been stayed by the Hon’ble Court, yet the respondent no.