Suryakant Sarkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

NIRMALA RAO

1

2026:CGHC:16312

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 409 of 2022

¶7

1 - Suryakant Sarkar S/o Madhava Sarkar, Aged About 50 Years Occupation Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Kurenar, Janpad Panchayat Koilibeda, District Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector, North Baster Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Koilibeda, District Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner/s	: Ms. Mahima Chandra, Advocate holding the
	brief of Shri Arham Siddiqui, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State	: Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent No.3 & 5	: Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.

¶18

2

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶20

0 9.04.2026

¶21

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside the impugned letter of recovery dated 24-12-2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.4.

¶23

10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶24

The petitioner serves as the Secretary of Lakhanpur, Gram Panchayat Kurenar, Janpad Panchayat Koilibeda, District Kanker. A social audit was conducted by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department Raipur for the year 2021-22, during which financial irregularities amounting to Rs.5,04,416/- were detected. The petitioner was held liable for a sum of Rs.1,00,885/- and was directed by the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Pakhanjur, District Kanker to deposit the said amount within a period of three days vide order dated 24.12.2021.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is argued that the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue) failed to serve notice upon the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order. She would pray to set aside the award.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner and other officer-bearers of the Gram

¶27

3

¶28

Panchayat committed financial irregularities. They would contend that a social audit was conducted by the department and thereafter, the liability was fastened upon the officer-bearers and specific recovery orders were issued. They would submit that the petitioner participated in the social audit process and a show-cause notice was also issued, which the petitioner duly replied vide Annexure-P/3.

¶29

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.

¶30

A perusal of Annexure-P/3 would show that a representation was made by the petitioner seeking a reduction in the amount assessed by the social audit. However, it appears that no show-cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer prior to issuance of the recovery notice dated 24.12.2021, therefore, without making any observation on merits of the case, the order (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall serve a notice upon the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a response. The authority concerned shall afford opportunity of hearing too. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days. The interim order granted earlier shall continue for a period of 90 days only.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

Nimmi

Suryakant Sarkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryakant Sarkar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dev Das Tondar (D.D. Tondar) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S. Budhia Auto Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shila Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Prakash Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Golden Eagle Ferro Ispat (P) Limited, Vs Union of India

Sadhna Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh