Order on Board

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 BPRINAIDEEP DsPD21+ i 07 R i a g 0 g 2: tAn 51 i e6 t 3 eD 3 : a . d 0 0: E l 5 l 3 bE y 1. yP 1 2 BINI 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 recovered even after demitting office by them, as the case may be. The section 89 specifically provides that an adjudication must be done and as per the proviso reasonable opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to those persons. In the present case there is no such adjudication under section 89 of the Act.

11. After adjudication under section 89, Section 92 gives power to prescribed authority to recover the records, articles and money belonging to the Panchayat from the custody of any person. Under subsection(2) of section 92, if any person fails or refuses to deliver the record or article or pay the money then the prescribed authority may apprehend him with a warrant for sending him to civil jail and under subsection (3) may recover such money as arrears of land revenue. As such under section 92 powers are given to the prescribed authority