fflCH COIIRT OF CHBATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS Writ Peti<ton (S) No. 45% uf2007 Siddharth Gaikwad, Aged 45 yeara, S/o Shri Vasudeo Rao Oaikwad, Woridng as Technical Expert, At Chhattisgarh Poverty Reduction Project Umt-Saraipali, R/'o Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG). VER8US 1. State ofChhattisgarii, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipir. 2. The Projeet Director, Cfahattisgarii Poverty Reduction Project, HQ A/l, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur (CG). 3. ChiefExecutive QfBcer, Nava Anjore Chhattisgarii Rural Poverty Reduction Project, Co-ordination, Unit Mahasamund (CG). 4. Chief Executive OIScer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, Distriet Mahasamund (CG). 5. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineerii^ Services Division, Mahasamund (CG). 6. Sub Divisional QEBcer, R.E.S. Sub Division Saraipali, District Mahasainund (CG). (WRTT PETmON UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CDNSTTTUTION OF INNA) (SB: Hon'bleMr.SatishK.AgniIwtniJ.) Present : Shri R.K. Kesarwani, Advocate for tfae petitioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No. 01. Shri Ayaz Naved, Advocate tcttbe respondent No. 2. None for the respondent No. 3 to 6. OR4LORDER (Passed cn 02nd ofAprB, 2008) 1. With the consent ofthe leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks quashing of the impugned recovery order dated 19.07.2007 (Aanexure P/l) passed by the Chief Executive Qfiicer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali (CG) and order dated 02.07.2007 (Aimexiire P/4) passed bythe respondent No. 3. 3. Despite notice and after grant ofsiifficient opportiinily, the respondent No. 3 to 6 have chosen not to appear in the niatter. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner sitbmits that the said recovery order has been passed by Ihe respondent authorities without issuing any notice and follown^; the semce rules, therefore, the impugned recovery order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rules 14 and 16 ofthe CMiattisgarh Civil Services (Ckssification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1966), hence the said recovery order be quashed. 8. I have heard leamed counsel for the appearing parties, perused thie pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that Ifae recovery wder dated 19.07.07 (Amiexiu-e P/l) to recover a sum of Rs. 3,18,207/- from the petitionw, was passed withoirt issuing any notice and afFording an opportiimty ofhearing to the petitioner to piit forward his case. Shri R.K. Kesarwani, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is wwking as Sub Engineer m Water Resources Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. He fiuther submits that the i^ue involved in this petition is as to whether a sum of Rs.3,18,207/- can be recovered, without aSFording opporti'nity of hearing to ths petitioner to pirt forward his case. Leamed counsel fiirther submits that the identical issue involving identical facts eame up before this Court in W.P. No. 2152/2002 (Saat Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). This Court held that recovery ofamouiit without afFording an opportunity ofhearing is punitive and visits with civil congeqiiences. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State submits that tfae facts involved in this petition is identical to that of in the matter ofW.P. No. 2152/2002 (Sant Kumar and others Vg. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Thus, ttus matter appears to be squarely eovered by decision of tfais Coiirt passed in Ihe matter of(Sant Kumar and others Vs. State ofChhattisgarfa and others) (Supra). Rule 16 ofthe, Riiles, 1966, provides fcff impogition ofpenalty specified in Claiises (i) to (iv) ofRule 10 aad Rule 11 after infonnmg the govemment servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputation of misconduct or niisbehavior for which it is proposed to be taken, aad giving him a reasonable opportimity of making such representaticm as he may wish to make against the proposal. Rule 10 reads asunder: "10. Penalties-The following penalties may, fw gcxxi and sufficient reasons and as heremafter provided, be imposed on a Govemment servant, namely: (i) Censiire; (ii) Wyhholding ofhis promotion; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Govemmeiit by negligence or breach oforder: - - ~ ^W-KiS... (iv) withholding ofincremeuts ofpay or stagiation allowance; It is a case where the recovery from pay of the petitioner has been ordered withoirt following the Aie process of law as laid down in mle 16 ofthe Rules- 1966. 9. Learaed counsel for the petitioner submits that Ifae respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (CivU) No. 17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & Otfaers Vs. Sant Kumar & others) befwe the Honlile Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.01.2(X)6 (supra), passed by this Court aad the same has been dismissed by the Honlle Supreme Court vide order dated 09.10.2006 after condoningthe delay. 10. Leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly submits Ifaat this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passed in the case ofSant Kuaiar and otfaers Vs. State ofChhattisgarh and others (Supra). This, the impugned order dated 19.07.07 (Amiexiire P/l) and 02.07.07 (Annenire P/4), are bad in law, being pimitive in natiire and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the conceraed employee (petitioner) for putting forward his case. 11. The petition is accordingly allowed in the same terms i.e. the impugned order dated 19.07.07 (Annexure P/l) and 02.07.07 (Annexure P/4), directing recovery of amount finm the petitioner, are hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take any steps, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following due process oflaw. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge