The High Court ordinarily refrains from exercising its writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved party, particularly when the challenge involves disputed questions of fact.

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction aside quashing proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 40(a) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, pursuant to the letter dated 29.09.2025 issued by the C.E.O./Respondent No. 4 and all consequential actions taken thereunder.

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P/1), as the same has been issued without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice;

10.3 Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience with cost of this petition.”

2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that The petitioner is the duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Korra, Janpad Panchayat Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.), and assumed charge of the office on 23.04.2025. During her tenure, certain complaints were received by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from vendors alleging non-payment for construction works, along with a complaint by the Panchayat Secretary alleging mental harassment. On the basis of these complaints, the CEO forwarded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) for initiation of proceedings under Section 40(a) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. In response to the notice issued, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply explaining that the alleged dues pertained to works executed during the tenure of the former Sarpanch. She requested that the requisite documents such as approvals, bills, vouchers, and completion certificates be furnished to enable lawful disbursement. Despite this, the authorities proceeded with action for her removal without adequately considering her reply. The petitioner has also contended that due to non-cooperation and absence of the Panchayat Secretary, statutory procedures could not be completed, resulting in delay in payments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as no proper and effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and her reply was not duly considered. It is contended that there is no finding of wilful default, misconduct, or abuse of power, which are essential prerequisites for invoking Section 40(a) of the Act. It is further submitted that the alleged non-payment relates to works executed during the tenure of the former Sarpanch, and the petitioner, upon assuming office, acted in accordance with law by insisting upon compliance with statutory requirements before releasing payments. Such conduct, being bona fide and in adherence to financial rules, cannot be construed as dereliction of duty. Learned counsel also submits that the delay in payments was primarily due to the negligence and non-cooperation of the Panchayat Secretary, who failed to discharge his statutory duties and remained absent, despite repeated complaints made by the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to collusion between the former Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has acted in good faith