Recovery proceedings against a Sarpanch must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice and the statutory procedure prescribed under Sections 40 and 92(4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, including the issuance of proper notice and a fair hearing.

Order on Board

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the legality, validity, and propriety of the orders/awards dated 13.08.2021 passed by Respondent No. 05 (Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Pakhanjur), whereby recovery of amounts totaling ₹53,85,444/-, ₹10,730/-, and ₹2,262/- has been directed on the basis of a Social Audit conducted by the Gram Sabha under the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned awards/orders dated 13/08/2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.05, in the interest of justice.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to quash the show cause notice dated 21-02-2019 (Annexure-P/6) issued by the Respondent No. 03.

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated in law, being arbitrary, mala fide and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the complaint dated 10.01.2019 was motivated and based on false and frivolous allegations. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was conducted by the competent authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Koilybeda, who, after due consideration, recommended a recovery of ₹7,01,760/- only. However, subsequently, the Social Audit Unit, without any lawful basis and ignoring the earlier inquiry report, conducted a social audit and arbitrarily enhanced the alleged recovery to ₹53,85,444/- along with other minor amounts, which is wholly unjustified and disproportionate.

3. It is further submitted that the social audit proceedings were conducted in a biased manner, as the Gram Sabha meeting was presided over by a person who is a political rival of the petitioner, thereby rendering the entire process tainted with malice. Moreover, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, nor was she afforded any opportunity of hearing before fastening such huge liability upon her. The impugned orders dated 13.08.2021 passed by Respondent No. 05 are thus in clear breach of audi alteram partem and deserve to be set aside on this ground alone.

4. Learned counsel further submits that even after issuance of notices by the prescribed authority, no final action has been taken in accordance with law. The petitioner has duly submitted her reply; however, the authorities have failed to consider the same and have proceeded mechanically on the basis of the Social Audit report. Such non-application of mind and inaction on part of the authorities renders the impugned action unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

5. Learned State counsel as well as counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 submit that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with law on the basis of findings recorded during the Social Audit conducted under the provisions of the MGNREGA Act, 2005. It is contended that the Social Audit is a statutory mechanism to ensure transparency and accountability in implementation of the scheme, and the recovery has been directed on the basis of material irregularities and financial misappropriation detected therein. It is further submitted that adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner during the course of proceedings, and the allegations regarding violation of principles of natural justice