HIGH i COURT OF CHHA‘TTISGARH AT BILASPU WP(S) No §80 /2o10 Pan Ku aw mar O S g about 3 /o Shri Jaeshwar’ Prasad Sah Nisha‘d Behind -Anuam Talkies Raut Para, agalpur‘ stri gd Dict IN TH R r! ‘ ‘ W PETlTiONERS 3 r \ ‘ \ 1 v Sahu, aged Co Mahes / h' oy an aged about 2 ears 'D/o Kribaram Alha, Near K ava Bharat iPressi Jagdalpu N r istrict Bastar;%C.G. D () «Dll Ri a 7 § y VS ERSU State o Chhttisah — Through f agr T y p f —:he Secretar, Deartment 6 Higher Educon K.S: ati D. Bhawan, Raipu‘r C.G. T D M dtn he irector, edicai' Ercat’ro Raipur C.G. f T ea he Dn, Cl‘ap olegedag‘dtur C.G. G ei ovt. MdCal RIT PETITIIONUNDER ARTICLE 226‘OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA t PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER s pericatise ti A tle 6632657 /1. " p a W 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH‘: EILA$PUR WRET PETWKDN (8) M1580 01:2010 Pawan Kumar Séhu & Another ’PETiTiONERS Veysus - J State of Chhatti§lgam & mhers i ESPCNDENTS r xWrit Petmora under Amde 22$ of the Coiistitutlon of 331d: ‘ Singie Bench Hon bie SM Satzsh K Agnahotn J ?resén§t - I F Shr§AV ShraYS T‘aakur Saidhai’ Dy Acivocate’ Adv generaior €o1't'*ae ‘ etit§oraer$ ihe State f uRutR gORAL) (Passed on this 24‘“ day of Febmary 201m With the consent of ieamed comsei aopearmg for i’we names the petition is heard finaliy 5y ‘his petition the petaimners chaaienge m. iegaitv and va imty of the order dated 21 12‘200g {Annexure — PM) whereby and 'whereunder a direction to recover an amount cl Refsmof- and R M persons Was passeé Learned counsel appearing for the petiiioners'submits that when the petitioners were iooking afrer the afr’airs or Practicei Laboretery ef the oyemment Medina! Correge, Jegdaipur, on 18-6-2009 certai moriocuiar. mieroecoeee were stoien by miscrearite. The matter wa repbrted ta the poiice anei the same was under investigation. Th petitioners were placed under suspensien, but on account ef non-eUbmiseion of charge sheet within the stipulated peried of $0 days, the suspension ordersvwere revoked. Thereafter, by ieiters ‘ é I daieei 8 7 2009 and 10—7-2009 the authorities asked queries from the petitianeis to which the petitioners submitted their response However aii of a sudden the impugned recovery ordei dated 11-12-2069 was passed in an iiiegai and arbitrary manner Without conducting proper enquiry. in ehsei‘ice of euoh enquiry, the impugned order of recovery is not sustainabie in the eye of iaw and the serne may be quashed. On the other hand, teamed oounsei appearirig'for the respondents submits that the recovery can he made from the saiary and aii’owences of the petitioner for causing iose to the oie‘pariment due to the negi‘igence of the empioyeer The matter was examined by the _ , , , I I 580OGI- frorr‘ rhe respective petatlorers aior‘g wrih other R C n I s e i d i , ‘ $ conéemed authorities an'd thefeafter 0mg the impugned crder was §as§e¢ Thus, the petitionei is netentitied‘to any ieiief. 1 i1 i haiie i heard ieamed counsel V appearing f’ f r the parties, pemsed ihe I blea§ciings and the documenis appended thereto. Admittediy the 1 I \ éiieéation of negligenae cannct be esteblished without hoiding a i . i , in S‘uresh Chandra Nanhorya v. Rejenera Rajak aridbthers‘, the ‘ l “8, Namrai justice is aniinsepai'abie ingredient e§ fairn ‘ss and reasonabie‘neee. it i5 even said thaii the principies of natural justice nimst be read into umoccspied interstices of the statute, ua'iiess there is a cieai mandate to the contiaryi 11. ature! justiee is the essence at fair adjudicatien, deeply; rooted in tradition and comscience, tei be ranked as tundamentai. The purpose of , following the principles ef hetural justice is the preveniien of miecarriage of justice.” ' proeer enquiry. x i ‘ Supieme Court observed as under: t i l . iln Shekhar Ghost: v. iJnion of indie amt enotherz, the Supreme Ceurt: whiie deeiing with the serious aiiegatiens made against the empioyeef observed as under “23 ...... Ali te hec igreents of princies o' turai usti re thits requi o b mpii wh. Th pe oticed reine’iore had no e iv eate prtit o hea ismuch as 1 t ring w oht to loe was a pot- as sug given s ecisne whic i hi in w; i} a dioi one, h s ac ia {i oo of he comaint w t suppiieci o te appeiient furtheranc it n t h at e ot psed tt ista s sought t b reciine iii care er rae (i no ines was examined; no nquiry ocer rrive at any and (v) i ffi ad inding tha the apeiian a ilty o the rges ieeiid ains hi.” Tis Cou in anpati Fewer i1. State Gov. f Ghattisgerha, 8. h rt G t o h observed as under : “i8. l the prnt cas, he pia loss, a as ben foun to have ee cse by t petitnrs: is o the e of 4 L and odd. ere ‘- {2o} sc aoo 2 (20) 331 WS 2936 2a ied -2—2010 3 P‘() M or m decic an 8 9 ‘ ‘ i N 1 : h essary rtdi pl r na ice we red t e coed it e apllant as o heb t ben gen adqu opouny f rihg na : {) he hea py t pl as no proo ha a mke wa o» e d; () no hgs we fmd; v) wts f t et ws gu f cha ve agt m h ese e t ecunry s h e d bn au he ioe t tun Rs. a acs Th oe 7 o 07 1 soc are ,thfee aspects which ave to be examined befare impesit§on{ of a pana§ty sf recovery of finanmah‘puwmafy ioss caused t9 tkm Gavemment Fwstiy, what zs me pecunwy ioss, se undiy wha was :espensibie For the 3055‘ and third§y, whetheg' the :e s was iaauwed by :1ag£:gence 9r breach 0" arder it is mt the case of the State that tqere wa¢ any meach 0f tne onia Gmy mgiigencp has been aiieged and foumi mevee en mpy i0 xhe shew cause meme it was stated teat the petitioners heve fened to examine the decuments fled by the Lantaractor preperiy and as tuch they were negiigeni Fux’ther {hey nave not Kept proper supemswn on the work ”g The prmmeie of add: alierem eerie» doee not cenfme m ewiy tee ems emf guciaeaai proceeeimgs buf i0 other praceedings alee, which reeuit inte ef¥ecting pemoWprcpefiy or ether righte’ of the parties in dispute. The principie apwes with equai force §n the proceedmgs, which effect: Habmty fof fecovery ef financial ioss aise. Looking from aii angles, inciuding gravity of the ’ahegahoh, it i5 ‘requhed to hoid reguiar enquiry b’efom estabiishing firsiiyE the emoum of loss caused ’to the State; secondly, the person whe §s responsibie for causing ioss; ahd, thirdiy, whether toes was eeused by negtigence or by breach of any order. Thus, the impugned order dated 21-12-2009 (Ahhexure — Pit) is quashed, reserving liberty to the respondentleuthorities to hoid an enquiry fer estabiishing the abeve Stated facts and taking appropriate action thereafter, ir’ so advised . 1 n the restrit, the writ petition is attowed to the extent indicated aboVe. No der asto costs. Sd/— SATISH K. AGNH-IOTRI Judtg Amit ”4e _ h or