Suresh Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:47628

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 341 of 2023

¶7

1 - Suresh Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Anup Singh Thakur Aged About 45 Years Presently Posted And Working As Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat - Ghumarguda, Janpad Panchayat-Deobhod, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

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

¶11

2 - Collector District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Deobhog, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Service, Sub Division - Deobhod, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2

¶16

6 - Darshanram Soni Janpad Member, Region No. 4, Janpad Panchayat - Deobhog, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate on
	behalf of Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 4	: Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 6	: Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate.

¶19

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

16/09/2025

¶22

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶23

reliefs:-

¶24

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the Petitioner.

¶25

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and quashed the impugned letters dated-05.12/2022 and 02.12.2022 (Annexure-P/1) and letter dated-02.01.2023 (AnnexureP/2).

¶26

10.3 That, Hon'ble Court he pleased to stay the

¶27

3

¶28

operation and effect of the letters dated-05.12.2022 and 02.12.2022 (Annexure-P/1) and letter dated-02.01.2023 (Annexure-P/2), till the pendency of the instant writ petition.

¶29

10.4 Any other relief which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of petition.”

¶30

Brief facts of the case, is that, vide order dated 03.08.2010, the petitioner was appointed as a Rojgar Sahayak (Contract) under the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development for a period of one year. He joined the post, and his services were subsequently extended from time to time. Presently, he is posted as Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Ghumarguda, Janpad Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. His services are governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2004, and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. On 20.09.2021, certain resolutions regarding developmental works were passed during the Gram Panchayat meeting, which were duly approved by respondent no. 4 after completion of all formalities. Following approval, funds were released by respondent no. 4, and the works were executed by the nodal agency, i.e., the Gram Panchayat. On 06.06.2022, respondent no. 6 submitted a complaint alleging misappropriation,

¶31

4

¶32

embezzlement, and forgery by the petitioner and others concerning the construction work of Botka Niji Talab and Govt. Litiguriya Talab. Although respondent no. 6 later withdrew the complaint, respondent no. 4 constituted an inquiry committee headed by respondent no. 3 to investigate the matter. Respondent no. 3 conducted the inquiry and submitted a report finding irregularities and recommending recovery of the misappropriated amount from the petitioner and others. Based on this report, respondent no. 4, vide letter dated 10.08.2022, recommended disciplinary action and recovery proceedings. Subsequently, vide letter dated 17.11.2022, respondent no. 3 sought an explanation from the petitioner, who submitted his reply denying all allegations. However, being dissatisfied with the explanation, respondent no. 3 directed respondent no. 4 to recover the alleged excess payment from the petitioner and deposit it into the account of Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband. Consequently, respondent no. 4 issued a letter directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount. It is submitted that the entire inquiry was conducted behind the petitioner's back, without adhering to the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was granted, nor were any relevant documents provided along with the show cause notice. Therefore, the proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside. Hence, this petition.

¶33

5

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders and recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities are ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of the settled principles of administrative law, the principles of natural justice, and the mandatory provisions of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. He further submits that the entire proceedings have been purportedly conducted under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, yet the crucial safeguards enshrined under sub-section (4) mandating the grant of reasonable opportunity to the person concerned to show cause prior to the initiation of any adverse action have been grossly disregarded. He further submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before or during the inquiry, which was conducted behind his back and without confronting him with any documentary evidence or witness testimonies, thereby rendering the inquiry and consequent recovery proceedings null and void. He further submits that the impugned actions are premised solely on the inquiry report of respondent No. 5, which lacks evidentiary value in absence of due process, and no independent examination of facts or consideration of the petitioner’s detailed reply and documents was ever undertaken. He further submits that the works in question were executed pursuant to resolutions of the Gram Panchayat and with prior approval from respondent No. 4, under

¶35

6

¶36

whose supervision the payments were also sanctioned and disbursed, thus, any alleged irregularity cannot be attributed solely to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner, having served continuously since 2018 and attained the status of a regular employee, is entitled to the procedural protections under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, and the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012, which have not been complied with. He further submits that the respondents’ failure to adhere to statutory provisions and judicial precedents, which emphasize the necessity of adhering to natural justice and affording a fair hearing before initiating punitive measures, amounts to a serious miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the impugned orders are also in derogation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned orders and recovery proceedings are vitiated in law and deserve to be quashed in toto.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 respectfully submits that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to reserve liberty in favour of respondent No. 3 so that, in the event of any future proceedings or actions being initiated, respondent No. 3 may be afforded proper notice and an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He further

¶38

7

¶39

submits that such liberty is necessary to safeguard the legal rights and interests of respondent No. 3 and to ensure that no adverse order is passed without granting due opportunity to present its case. He further submits that the requirement of issuance of notice and providing an effective opportunity of hearing is a settled position of law, and therefore, liberty in this regard may graciously be preserved in favour of respondent No. 3.

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶41

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that although notices have been issued to the parties concerned, no proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. It is a settled principle of natural justice that no adverse order should be passed without granting an adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected party. In the absence of compliance with this fundamental requirement, the impugned order, to the extent it pertains to the recovery proceedings, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order in respect of recovery is hereby set aside/quashed at this stage, with liberty to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law after providing

¶42

8

¶43

due notice and an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶45

However, liberty is reserved to respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate order afresh while giving proper opportunity of hearing and then to take a decision in the matter.

¶46

SD/-

¶47

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶48

Judge

¶49

Raghu Jat

Suresh Kumar Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Gokul Sahu

Branch Manager Vs Smt Ishwari Bai Alias Rajeshwari Sahu

Ram Bahadur Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sarita Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Aarti Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankit Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh