Meghnath Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

2026:CGHC:17402

AVINASH SHARMA

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.21 11:34:19 +0530

¶7

WPC No. 2881 of 2021

¶8

1 - Meghnath Patel S/o Gadarai Patel, Aged About 46 Years Sarpanch Village Panchayat Medhapali, R/o Village Medhapali, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Sukhsagar Manikpuri S/o Resham Das, Aged About 39 Years Up - Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Medhapali, R/o Village Medhapali, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.,

¶10

3 - Dayalal Patel S/o Chain Singh, Aged About 40 Years Panch, Village Panchayat Medhapali, R/o Village Medhapali, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Petitioner(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Basna, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶16

5 - Purushottam Patel S/o Mohanlal Patel, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Harilachapadar, Village Panchayat Medhapali, Tahsil Basna District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For State/Res	: Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, PL.
For Respondent No.5	: Shri Sudhanshu Upadhyay appears on behalf of Shri Sharad Mishra, Advocates.

¶19

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board

¶20

2

¶21

16/04/2026

¶22

The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶23

i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents.

¶24

ii. To kindly quash the Order vide no. 949/MGNREGA/F-5/J.P./2020-21 Basna dated 12/11/2020 issued by the respondent Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat imposing penalty of Rs. 1000.00 upon the petitioner no.1 under Section 25 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (in short MNREGA). (ANNEXURE P/1)

¶25

iii. To kindly quash the order vide no. 3393/S.A.Misc/2020 Raipur dated 17/11/2020 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur directing the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna to recover 12750:00 as well as directing the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to proceed under the provisions of CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (ANNEXURE P/2).

¶26

iv. To kindly quash the proceedings under Section 40 of the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,1993 vide Revenue Case no. 73/A/89 year 2020-21 pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali District Mahasamund (C.G.) (ANNEXURE P/3).

¶27

Facts of the case succinctly stated are that the petitioners are office bearers of the Village Panchayat Medhapali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). Under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Act (for short “MGNREGA”), the Village Panchayat is the implementing authority. To ensure the employment to the households, job cards are issued containing the names of all eligible adult members. Any adult member whose name is there in the job card can seek work under the Scheme. During the COVID-19 pandemic period due to quarantine restrictions, family members of the job card holders worked and received money for the work done by them and the job card holder also. Without ascertaining the

¶28

3

¶29

factual aspect, the respondent No.5 Purushottam Patel in the month of July 2020 made a complaint to the Janpad Panchayat alleging inter alia that the petitioners have entered names of quarantine labours in the muster roll and have misappropriated the government money. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna without complying with the provisions of the MNREGA arbitrarily appointed enquiry officer contrary to the provisions of the Grievance redressal mechanism i.e. Instruction on Ombudsman (ANNEXURE P/5) statutorily prescribed under the MNREGA. The enquiry officer without following the due procedure prescribed under the law took unilateral statements submitted his enquiry report on 20/07/2020 (ANNEXURE P/6) and held that out of the complaint regarding 47 labours, the complaint was found to be false for 40 labours and regarding 7 labours the family members of the card holders have worked but the name of 7 labours were entered in the muster roll which is contrary to MNREGA provisions. The villagers of the village also represented before the authorities on 13/08/2020 that the respondent Purushottam Patel is making false complaints due to dirty politics. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund vide letter dated 11/11/2020 (ANNEXURE P/7) directed the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Basna to impose fine of Rs. 1000.00 on the petitioners under Section 25 of the MNREGA. The due process of imposition of fine has not been followed. Despite such illegal direction the Chief Executive Officer vide impugned order 12/11/2020 imposed a recovery order of Rs. 6375.00 and fine of Rs. 1000.00 on the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount under duress and pressure of higher authorities. The Commissioner, Raipur Division despite action being taken under the Special Act again vide letter dated 17/11/2020 directed the Sub-Divisional Officer

¶30

4

¶31

(Revenue) to initiate proceedings under the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and also directed the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Basna to recover the entire amount of Rs. 12750.00 from the petitioner. The SDO has initiated the proceedings for removal of the petitioner no.1 as Sarpanch under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The petitioner is thus a victim of multiple jeopardy and illegal actions. It is settled law of the land that when the law prescribes a thing to de done in a particular manner then all other manners of doing that thing are prohibited. In the present case when the MNREGA provides for a specific set of statutory provision to deal with the complaint filed regarding MNREGA then the private enquiry report and the action taken on such report are nullity. The order imposing penalty under Section 25 MNREGA without following the due procedure for imposing such penalty would be without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The order of the Commissioner directing the SDO(Revenue) to initiate action under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam as well as direction to the CEO for recovery of entire amount would be void ab initio as the same is based on a faulty and illegal report. The petitioner would respectfully submit that removal of an elected representative is a serious matter and without following the due procedure no such action can be taken.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that he is not pressing relief No.iv which is in respect of proceedings under Section 40 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 against the Sarpanch, Up Sarpanch and panch/petitioners respectively owing to the fact that tenure of the petitioners holding the said posts has expired. As such, he would be confining his arguments to Relief Nos.ii and iii only. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it has been alleged that during the course of covid pandemic name

¶33

5

¶34

of fake labours have been entered into the muster roll thereby forging the same, as such, misappropriation of funds has been done by the petitioners. He submits that recovery for an amount of Rs.12,750/- has been issued against the petitioners and a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner No.1.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that proper opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. Further, incompetent officer without jurisdiction has conducted the enquiry in the case. As the present matter relates to MGNREGA, only Ombudsman shall conduct the enquiry if any allegation is made in respect of misappropriation of funds that too after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee. Hence, the impugned orders of recovery and imposition of fine may kindly be quashed.

¶36

Learned State counsel submits that so far as present case is concerned, the prescribed authority for conducting enquiry is Ombudsman, however, in the present case, Chief Executive Officer has conducted the enquiry which is bad in law.

¶37

Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 submits that impugned orders have rightly been passed as petitioners during their tenure in the office of Sarpanch has performed misappropriation of funds.

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

¶39

In the present case, the complaint pertains to alleged irregularities and misappropriation under the scheme framed in accordance with the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. The statutory

¶40

6

¶41

mechanism for redressal of grievances under the Act provides for appointment of Ombudsman under Section 27, and the procedure for dealing with complaints is specifically laid down in the Instructions on Ombudsman.

¶42

From plain reading of the Instructions on Ombudsman (Annexure P/5), it is clear that post of Ombudsman has been created under Section 27 of the MGNREG Act with an agenda to establish a system for redressal of grievances and disposal of complaints relating to implementation of the MGNREG Act and the schemes made under the Act by the States.

¶43

The Instructions on Ombudsman in respect of disposal of complaint is envisaged in Clause 12 of the said instructions. Clause 12.1 reads as under:-

¶44

12.1 On receipt of the complaint, Ombudsman may refer the complaint to the appropriate MGNREGA authority for disposal within seven (07) days. In the event of failure of the MGNREGA authority to dispose the complaint, the matter may be taken up by the Ombudsman for disposal.

¶45

The reference of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that on receiving a complaint, Ombudsman may refer the complaint to the appropriate MGNREGA authority for disposal within seven (07) days. In the event of failure of the MGNREGA authority to dispose the complaint, the matter may be taken up by the Ombudsman for disposal.

¶46

In the case at hand, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna conducted the enquiry on his own and appointed an enquiry officer, without there being any reference by the Ombudsman as contemplated under the statutory framework. Even learned State counsel has fairly submitted that the prescribed authority for conducting enquiry in such matters is the Ombudsman and not the Chief Executive Officer. Therefore, the enquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer is dehors the statutory provisions and is bad in law.

¶47

7

¶48

As such, the impugned order dated 12/11/2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna imposing fine of Rs.1,000/under Section 25 of the MGNREGA and directing recovery, being founded upon an enquiry conducted by an incompetent authority and without following due procedure, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶49

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent of Relief Nos.ii and iii.

¶50

The impugned order dated 12/11/2020 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna and order dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure P/2) is hereby quashed/set aside.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶53

Avinash

Meghnath Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meghnath Patel 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

Mangal Prasad Kaushal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Kumar Kamar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daman Kumar Luniya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A. K. Banjare Vs Union of India

Salik Ram Vs Union of India

Hitesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh