(D e/‘(éo/f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (S) No. 2 4’é0 0f200¢7 PETITIONER :wwVirerlldra Pandey, son of Late Shri Badri Nath Pandey, aged about 58 $9 ( Q years, resident of Village Balrampur 4&1“ Post, Tahsil and P.S. Balrampur, ,a District Sarguja (C‘G.). W VERSUS RESPONDENTS gal. State of Chhattisgarh, Through W INDIA ,7 The Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), Mig‘i 2. Managing Director, North Sarguja /X*J I $vu“ arr/1.” ‘(fm ’i?"""\3/ I§X¥h%\ 9/ 43 9" ff, I Forest Range, Jila Vanopaj Sangh Maryadit, Ambikapur, District evagiif’ Sarguja (Chhattisgarh), 3 Conservator of Forest, East 7;.) //,. r Sarguja, Forest Range, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh). HIGH COURT OF CHHATT‘SGARH AT BILASPUR’ (Hon. Mr. Justice Pminker Diwaker} Writ Petition (S) N0. 246007 2007 PETITIONER Virendra Pandey VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri H. B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner. V Shri Vivek Sharm, PL for the Statelrespondent Nos. 1 & 3. Shri A. S. Kachhwaha, counsei for respondent No.2. iRiT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CO§$TITUTION OF iQDiA ORDER (29.09.2010) The petitioner who is a retired empioyee of respondent No.2 Jiia Vanopaj Sangh Maryadit, Ambikapur is aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 hoiding the petitioner guilty for the misuse of Rs.72,931 and directing for recovery of the same. 2, Contention of Shri Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Though in the said order it has been mentioned that the notice under Section 64 of Chhattisgarh Cw operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’) was not been followed. 3. On the other hand supporting the impugned order ithas been ll that the petitioner was appointed as nodai onicer on 26.3.1993 vide i issued but the procedure ‘ as prescribed under Section 64 of the Act has i l l l argued by the counsel for respondents in particular respondent No.2 ‘ Annexure R-2i‘l and as in the audit it has been found that in the year i l 1993-94 and 1994-95 Rs. 43,944.67 (Annexure P—1) and Rs.28,986.35 ; are outstanding against him. on 11.7.2003 vide Annexure R-2/2 a! notice was oiven to the petitioner and thereafter on 1.9.2003 a wi— reminder (Annexure R-2l3)was given to the petitioner and then the impugned order dated 132.2004 has been passed. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materiai availabie on record. 4‘ 5. From the impugned order (Annexure P-2) it appears that the ; i same has been passed under Section 64 of the Act but there is no document on record to show that the order impugned has been passed after due compliance of the provisions of Section 64 of the Act. Further it appears that though Annexure R-2/2 and R-2l3 were issued to the petitioner asking him to deposit the entire amount within 7 days but the petitioner has not been given any formal show—cause notice seeking his reply towards his conduct and liabiiity. it appears that the order impugned has been passed without following the due procedure of law and without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned dated 13.2.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 is quashed. However, liberty is given to the respondent No.2 to initiate -*‘ ‘ fresh proceedings against the petitioner if so required in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to him. if the respondent No.2 does not initiate any proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the concemed authority would refund the entire amount to the petitioner along with 6% interest on it. ; ,AN Wt l . Sdi— Pritinker Diwaket’ Judge