~ CQ Single Bend! ‘ (ya/ltacrzw @ 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR reg WRIT PETITION (S) No. (LGQI /2009 PETITIONER /Sonauchanda Bharati S/o Manmohan Bharti Aged—about 41 years, ASSistant grade-3, Government Higher Secondary School, Sariya, Block— Baramkela, Distt.— Raigarh [c.Gj VERSUS {/State of Chhattisgarh Through— Secretary, School education department, , D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.} /’ 2. Joint Director, Treasuries, accounts and pension, Bilaspur [CIG.] W3. District Education Officer Raigarh, Distt.— RaigarhiCGJ (”4. Principal, Government Higher Secondaly School, San‘ya, Block- Baramkela, Distt.— Rajgarh [C.G.] wRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS C HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1001 0f2009 PETITIONER Sonauchanda Bharati. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Writ Petition Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of Tndia SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. M¥_#_/ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26mday of Febmary, 2019) With the consent ofleamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 02.02.2009 (Annexure > P/5) whereby a sum of Rs. 44,554/- has been directed to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in 89 installments, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Grade III, at Government Higher Secondary School, Sariya, District Raigarh. The petitioner received the impugned order dated 02.02.2009 (Annexure P/5) whereby a sum of Rs. 44,554!- was directed to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in 89 installments, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner. The petitioner is still in service. ' 3. Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the punitive order of recovery has heen passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He lilrther contends that the @‘ issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon’bie Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syecl Abdul Qadz‘r and others vs. State of Bfhar and others!) This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Shri Bhaduri iiirthe‘r submits that since no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the impugned order, liberty may be gamed to the respondent/State to take steps for recovery of any excess amount after following the due process of law and aiter affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is a trite law that no order prejudicing the interest of an employee can be passed without aEording an opportunity of hearing. It is not the case of respondents that opportunity of hearing was alforded to the petitioner, and the present case is such wherein notice ofhearing is to be dispensed with. The Supreme Court, in Rajaslhan Stare Road Transport Corporation & another v. Bat Mukzmd Bairwa (2)2, observed as under: “35. Any order passed in violation ofthe principles of natural justice save and except certain 1.‘ (2009) 3 SCC 475 2 (2009) 4 sccr299 @y contingencies of cases, would be a nullity. In ARAmulay this Court held: (SCC p. 660, para 55) “55. No prejudice need be proved for enforcing the fundamental rights. Violation of a fundamental right itself renders the impugned action void. So also the violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity.” 47. The purpose ofthe principles ofnatural justice is prevention of miscarriage of justice and hence the observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action. (See Sawai Singii v. State of Rajasthan and Narinder Mohair Arya v. United India Insurance C0. Ltd). Accordingly, the impugied order 02.02.2009 (Annexure P/5) directing recovery of a um of Rs. 44,554/- from the salary of the petitioner in 89 installments on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Ifthe amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents to take any steps, if so advised, in accordance with law for recovery ofexcess payment. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri . Judge There shall be no order asto costs.