c^ / f3r^2- 3 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fW.P. fS) No...... .1.^?...^.... ./2010) PETITIONER : Arjun Lal Navneet S/o. Jagat Ram Navneet; aged about 63 year; R/o. t/ Rambhantha (Baikunthpur); ^^ District - Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENDS 1. ^'" o..--y^ ,<9^'^y. .^^: ^^^ •^Y^ ••'t,y\^>''' ••-y^ .^:y .y" ^•y ^"" ^" \y 'v " .^•^•" State ofChhattisgarh, Through: Secretary School Education Department D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. * The Joint Director; Treasury Accounts and Pension Bilaspur (C.G.) r" 3. The District Education Officer., D.E.O.Office Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Prmcipal, Govemment Higher Sccondary School Kotara; District—Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH CO'U'RT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETmON (S) No. 1539 of2010 PETITiONER : Aijun Lal Navneet. VERSUS- RESPONDENTS : State ofCfaliattisgarh <& O&ers. WRn;rerm(^UND]^ARTICI^226OT;raECONSTrTUTI^^ SB: HoB'Me Shri K. Agisihotri, J. Present: Shri Vineet K. Pandey, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Paiiel Law^^er for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 08th day of April, 2010) 1. The petitioner impugns the commumcation dated 26.05.2009 (^mexure P/l) whereby the Joint Director, Treasury Accounts & Pension, Bilaspu'r Division, has written to the Prmcipal, Goveniiiient Higher Secondary School, Koim, District Raigarh, to take appropriate action under tlie provisions of Rule 65 of the Clihattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1916 (for short 'theRules, J 976'). 2. The petition is at the stage of mitiation of proceedings under the provisions ofthe Rule 65 ofllie Rules, 1976. 3. Ste Pandey, leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that m light of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Syed Abdni Qadir and of.he.rs v. State afBi/wr a.nd others as well as this Court in pMmclumdfa KMrmp v. St^-te ^fC.G. & ffther/ wherein it was held that no recoveiy can be made under Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976 after retirement ofancmployee. 4, Reliance of the petitioner on the aforesaid cases is not applicable and available to the facts ofthe case. In the above cases, recovenr was made ' (2009) 3 SCC 475 . 'W.P.(S)No. 3663 of 2009 ^l( without following the due process of law aiid without afibrding opportunity of hearing, iii such circumstances, it was held that on account ofthefaultofthe employer, no recovery can be made from the employee. However, the provisions of Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976 was not under challenge in tlie above petitions. In view ofRule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, the petitioner camiot escape from show cause notice, reply thereto and the order fhereon. The impugtied conimumcation does not disclose any cause ofaction as it is at the stage of mitiation of show cause notice. Thereafter, notices has to be issued and the reply to the notice will also required to be filed. Without there being any order against the petitioner, fhe petition is not mamtamable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not mamtainable at the motion stage itself Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge Amit