Bel Singh Maitri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2357 of 2018 • Bel Singh Maitri S/o Late Laxman Maitri, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village And Post Bunga, Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Government Of Chhattistgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

3. Shri Neelamber Sidar S/o Late Shri Muni Sidar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post Bunga, Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate Order On Board By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 27/8/2018

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner is challenging the proceeding under Section 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short "the Adhiniyam") drawn against him for recovery of the amount, which the petitioner has defalcated in carrying out the construction and other activities while he was serving as

Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bunga, Block Pusaur, District Raigarh (CG).

3. Perusal of the papers would demonstrate that vide Annexure P/1 dated 14.10.2009, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice for his removal under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam for committing misappropriation of the funds entrusted to him for carrying out the activities of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice and thereafter, the competent authority passed the order on 25.11.2009 removing him from the ofÏce and directing recovery of Rs.6,26,816.19 and rice weighing 22.675 quintals. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Raigarh by preferring an appeal under Section 91 of the Adhiniyam. The appeal was dismissed on 31.8.2012, against which, the petitioner did not prefer any revision within time, as the same was actually preferred on 27.9.2017, which was also dismissed on the ground of limitation by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division on 9.1.2018.

4. In the meanwhile, proceedings under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam for recovery of the subject amount and quantity of rice was initiated against the petitioner vide orders in order sheet- Annexure P/11, wherein, notice was issued to the petitioner, after which, he appeared in person before the SDO(R) on 11.8.2017 and again appeared through his counsel on 24.8.2017 and on this date, warrant of arrest was issued against him. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has already deposited a

sum of Rs.50,000/- in two installments of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/-, therefore, he has admitted his guilt of causing misappropriation of the Panchayat funds.

5. It is too late for the petitioner to challenge the proceeding, which has its basis in the Audit Report and was edifice for initiation of proceeding for his removal under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam. The said part of the proceeding has attained finality, therefore, the recovery of the amount against the petitioner is the necessary consequential order which cannot be interfered as long as the order under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam and the Audit Report hold the ground

6. There is no substance in the writ petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Shyna