Chattisgarh High Court

Ranjit Biswas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 July, 2025

                                         1




Digitally signed
by RAMESH                                                 2025:CGHC:37783
KUMAR VATTI
Date: 2025.08.05
19:53:28 +0530                                                           NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                             WPS No. 5234 of 2021
* - Ranjit Biswas S/o Late Shshdhar Biswas Aged About 49 Years R/o P.V. 07,
Village Panchayat Chotekapsi, School Para, Post Kapsi, Pakhanjur, District-
Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
                                                              ... Petitioner
                                      Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat
And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atat Nagar Nawa
Raipur,District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector Kanker, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Kanker, District- Uttar Bastar
Kanker (C.G.)
4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Koilybeda, District- Uttar
Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
5 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pakhanjur, District- Uttar Bastar
Kanker (C.G.)
                                                                 ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nande, Advocate

For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 5 : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer

For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31/07/2025

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

holding the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat- Shankar Nagar,

Janpad Panchayat and District Uttar Bastar Kanker. He further

submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pakhanjur, District

Uttar Bastar Kanker/Prescribed Authority under the C.G. Panchayat

Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam, 1993")

issued a notice on 25.08.2021 for recovery of Rs.18,97,614.80. He

also submitted that the order of recovery has been passed on the

ground that the petitioner committed financial irregularity and an

enquiry was conducted against the then Sarpanch/Sandhya Biswas,

and the petitioner. It is further contended that a notice dated

25.08.2021 has been issued according to the provisions of Section 92

of the Adhiniyam, 1993. It is also contended that no enquiry according

to 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.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

would oppose. They submitted that the Sarpanch and Secretary of the

Gram Panchayat committed financial irregularities; therefore, after

conducting a due enquiry, the order of recovery of Rs.18,97,614.80

was passed. He further submitted that the petitioner is liable for

Rs.18,67,614.80, and therefore, notice has been issued.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents placed on record.

5. 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE (Shri Kadam Singh Vs. The CEO & Ors.) 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 for execution of the order passed under section 89. In the present case there is no adjudication under section 89, therefore, there cannot be any execution proceeding or order order passed therein under section 92 of the Act. The prescribed authority has straight away on the basis of ex-parte enquiry report initiated recovery under section 92. In view of the above, the impugned show cause notice as well as the final order dated 8.10.2015 are hereby set aside. Needless to say that still respondents/authority shall be at liberty to take prompt action against the petitioner under section 89 & 92 of the Panchayat Act."

6. Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, reads as under:-

89. Liability of Panch etc. for loss, misappropriation.

(1)Every Panch, member, office-bearer, officer or servant of Panchayat shall be personally liable for loss, waste or misapplication 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 amount required for reimbursing such loss, waste, or misapplication shall be recovered by the prescribed authority ;Provided that no recovery shall be made under this section unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(2)If the person concerned fails to pay the amount, such amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and credited lo the funds of the Panchayat concerned.

7. Taking into consideration the fact that an enquiry was conducted

behind the back of the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted

according to the provisions of Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and

no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner; therefore, the

notice dated 25.08.2021 is hereby quashed.

8. The prescribed authority is directed to conduct an enquiry strictly in

accordance with the law, keeping in view the observations recorded by

this Court and the provisions of Section 89 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, and

after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, may take a

fresh decision.

9. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s) the instant petition is

hereby disposed of.