Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 20624
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
SMT. ASHA PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS No. 6460 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajendra Patel, Sunil Sahu
For the Respondents: Abhishek Singh, Anurag Verma
A finding of negligence by a statutory authority (Ombudsman/Appellate Authority) that remains unchallenged attains finality and provides a valid basis for subsequent administrative actions, including recovery and removal from service.
Headnote:The petitioner, a Technical Assistant on contract, challenged the orders of recovery and removal from service following allegations of financial irregularities and forging muster rolls for road construction. The matter was initially examined by the Ombudsman under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, and subsequently by the Appellate Authority, which affirmed a finding of negligence against the petitioner. The primary issue was whether the removal from service was arbitrary given that the Appellate Authority's order specifically recommended recovery of 15 days' salary rather than termination. The court reasoned that the finding of negligence by the Ombudsman and Appellate Authority had attained finality as it was not challenged by the petitioner before a higher forum, thereby justifying the administrative actions taken by the respondent. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of financial irregularity allegations and subsequent recovery and removal orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contention regarding the lack of specific recommendation for removal versus the finality of the negligence finding. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. unchallenged findings of negligence by statutory authorities attain finality. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. dismissal of petition due to lack of grounds to interfere with final orders. (Para 13 , 14) |
Order On Board
1) Heard.
2) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
“1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the order impugned dated 02.07.2018 and 03.08.2018 (Annexure P-1& P-2) passed by the respondent No.3.
2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly please to call the entire record leading to issuance of the impugned order from the possession of the respondents.
3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.”
3) Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant vide order dated 16.11.2011 under respondent No.3 on contract. Thereafter, her services were extended from time to time. A complaint was made before the Collector, District Mahasamund alleging that the petitioner, Sarpanch, Secretary, Rojgar Sahayak of Gram Panchayat, Salhejhariya had committed financial irregularities by forging the muster rolls for construction work of the approach road. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and other office-bearers, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner had committed financial irregularities to the tune of Rs.2,87,666/-. Show-cause notice was duly replied by the petitioner, wherein, she denied allegations.
4) The matter was examined by the Ombudsman, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Mahasamund, wherein, the allegations were found proved and an order for recovery of Rs.3,58,716/- was passed against the petitioner and other office-bearers vide order dated 18.08.2017. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was partly allowed and only the recovery of 15 days’ salary was recommended and other recommendations were set aside vide order dated 08.11.2017.
5) Pursuant to the order passed by the Ombudsman,Appellate Authority, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchyat, Mahasamund, after due inquiry, passed an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.86,299.80 against the petitioner vide order dated 02.07.2018.
6) Subsequently, the petitioner was removed from services by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchyat, Mahasamund vide order dated 03.08.2018 in the light of order passed by the Ombudsman, Appellate Authority dated 08.11.2017.
7) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the Ombudsman, vide order dated 08.11.2017, made various recommendations including the recommendation of recovery of Rs.3,58,716/-; deduction of one month’s salary and initiation of departmental inquiry and the petitioner was also held to be negligent. He would contend that the Ombudsman, Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.11.2017 set aside the recommendations No.1,2,3 & 5. He would submit that a direction was issued to the petitioner herein to deposit salary of 15 days. It is argued that pursuant to order passed by the Ombudsman, Appellate Authority, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and subsequently, order of recovery to the tune of Rs.86,299.80 has been passed vide order dated 02.07.2018 against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund vide order dated 03.08.2018 on the basis of the order passed by the Ombudsman/Appellate Authority removed the petitioner from services. He would contend that as there was no recommendation with regard to removal from services, order
