2026:CGHC:11632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1033 of 2026 Smt. Santoshi Manhare W/o. Shri Sandeep Manhare Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Ex-Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Bitkuli, Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar, Distt - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Collector Balodabazar Distt - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue) Balodabazar District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Balodabazar District - Balodabazar-

Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Order on Board

11.3.2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holding the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bitkuli, District Baloda Bazar. He further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balodabazar/Prescribed Authority under the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “Adhiniyam, 1993”) passed an impugned order on 18.02.2026, whereby the objection regarding maintainability of the Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date:

2026.03.12

+0530

case/proceedings was rejected and without conducting any inquiry under Section 89 of the Act 1993, proceedings for recovery of the amount of Rs. 15,62,874/- have been initiated against the petitioner without any order. He also submitted that the order of recovery has been passed on the ground that the petitioner committed financial irregularities and an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. It is further contended that a notice dated 13.11.2025 was issued according to the provisions of Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. It is also contended that no enquiry, as required under the provisions of Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, was conducted, therefore, the notice issued to the petitioner is illegal and void ab initio. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kadam Singh vs. CEO and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine MP 12064. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the above contention raised by the petitioner. He submitted that the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat committed financial irregularities, therefore, after conducting due enquiry, the order of recovery of Rs. 15,62,874/- was passed. He further submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 15,62,874/-, and therefore, notice has been issued.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kadam Singh (supra) held that no recovery shall be made under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Relevant para 10 and 11 are reproduced here-in-below :-

“10. From bare perusal of section 89 it is clear that every Panch, member, office-bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat shall be personally liable for the loss, waste or misappropriation of any money or other property of the Panchayat to which he has been a party or which has been caused by him by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties. The said amount is liable to be recovered by the prescribed authority. As per the proviso to this section no recovery shall be made under this section unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. That every Panch, member, office-bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat may be existing or ex or removed who has caused loss to the Panchayat by misconduct or gross neglect of his duties and required for reimbursing such loss, waste or misapplication and same can be r