le Ben IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT: BILASPUR W.P.No^393 OF 2005 PETITIONER: •^ lt>- .^$y- sft- •ffl'..KfiSPONDENTS: <^^-" Balwant Singh Verma, aged 57 years, son of late Shri Ganesh Ram Verma, resident '!^.i> of village Bodla, tehsil Bodla & district ^1'3^-'^' ..•••"' Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS (y-State of Chhattisgarh, through the ^ Secretary, Water Resources Department, Raipur. Chief Engineer, Mahanadi-Godawari Basin, Department of Water Resources, Raipiir (Chhattisgarh) Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Kawardha, district Kabtrdham (Chhattisgarh). WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE VI OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR DIRECTION. ^^ :SPONDENTS WRIT PET!TiON(SSN0.4999/2005 Balwant Singh Verma Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others ^ (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aflnihotri, J, Present:- Shri Somnath Verma, counsei for the pefitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, DeputyGovt. Advocate forthe State. ORAi- ORDER (Passed on this 27 day of October, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finaily. (2) The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 08-12-2004 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.33,589/- as loss to the govemment. On verification of the goods, it was found that there is a shortageof materials whenthe petitioner was posted under the Executive Engineer, Chhirpani Project, Sub Division No.2 (Dam Site), Bodla, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) from02-08-1983 to 30-09-1994. ' (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been fastened the burden to pay Rs.33,589/- without proper enquiry asto whether the petitioner was responsible for missing of some articles, and as such, no order which visits with the civil consequences and no punitive order can be passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (4) On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner working on the post of Assistant Grade-11 was having charge of the Sub Divisional Assistant and Store Assistant during the period 02-08-1983 to 30-09-1994 in the office of Chhirpani Project, Sub Division No.2 (Dam Site), Bodla, DistrictKabirdham (Kawardha). The Sub Divisibnai Officer submitted that the petitioner was noticed on 12-12-1994to appear for physicai verification of all materiais in the store of Chhirpani Project, Sub Division No.2 (Dam Site), Bodla, District Kabirdham (Kawardha). Tha -L- i1 petitioner failed to appear for physical verification, as a resultof which, show cause notice was sent on 11-01-1995 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation regarding shortage of materials. The petitioner has submitted his expianation on 10-08-2001. Shri Bhatia, learned State counsel submits that the explanation given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 1 have perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The impugned order itself indicates that there was no in-depth enquiry and the order of recovery of Rs.33,589/- has been passed on the basis of prima facie satisfaction. Prima facie satisfaction cannot be held as conclusive and as such, it cannot be held that there was a proper enquiry as required before passing the impugned order. The impugned order reads as under:- "sRf: •d^ii^*^ ^ fS[^r ^- TTr^r ^ ^- c^ f^[ it ^^\^ fN^t ^ ~^y^ "^ ^ WT ^n ?T^ ^ ^ ^ R^ ^ .'):PJ^T?/A ^ Tft. wrfr ^r 80 ii^t ^s '^fte ^t ^Ncr tET 75% ^ ~^^. ^TT' 3)^1 l<fl^ 3[fgR5^t ^ ;TW 100769.00 WT 1?cf 25% 'Tlf^T STTq^ •?rPT 33589.00 W? f?lte rtlw ^IT 3lf?R ^ 3RFf?T tef^f c^- i^ ^ i f^ ^fflT ^^ ^ 3!TO^ ^ I^SIT irar t f^ ^T ^RT ;i€ra?^ ^ fN^r ^ ^t ^T Wfe[ ^ Wf ^5. 4234/^T°^R I^TO 27.09.2004 ^RT 934/- ^T WT^ 'ERFT ^ ^W 'R^t (36 f^^T ft) cf?? ci57rr^chl4c||^l ^t^TT^ttl" (6) It is a trite law that no punitive order visiting with civil consequences may be passedwithout affording opportunity of hearing to the employee. In the present case, it appears that no enquiry in presence of the petitioner has been held and on the basis bf prima facie satisfaction, the impugned order of recovery of Rs.33,589/-was passed. 'li''iane TTTIT' (7) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 08-12-2004 is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents to hold proper enquiry and pass appropriate orders on its own merits in accordance with iaw. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. — — ——• SdA ^ 1 satishK.Agnihotri I judge !