^. \0\OL i. HIGH COURT OF OEIHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WntPetitfon(S)No.2083of2pOS PETTTTQNER : L.K. Chandrakar, S/o Shri Bisram Chandrakar, aged about 48 years, Assistant Grade-n, Industrial Trainmg Institute Center, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RJ'.SPQNDENTS : l.The State of Chhattisgarii, Jhrough Secretary Janshakti Niyojan/'Director Employment and Training, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (Chliaftisgarh). 2. The Director, Employment and Trauimg, Chhattisgarii State, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. The Additional Director, Employment and Trainii^ Girls Polytechnic Premises, Byron Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 4. The Superinteadent, Industrial Training fastitute Center Baloda Bazar, District Raipir (Chhattisgarh). (WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmJHON OF INDIA) (SS^ Hon'bleMr^Satish K.AenU>otri,J.) Present : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petrtioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for tfie State/respondents. ORAI,OJRDE,R (Passed on 03th ofApii}, 2008) !. With fhe consent offhe parties, the tnatter is taken up for hearmg fmally, 2- L«amed coiuisel appearuig for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Assistant Grade-II/In-charge Cashier in the Industrial Training Institirte Center, Baioda Bazar, Distt. R.aipur (CG). 3. On account of theft in tiie night 30.08.2006, the petitioner along witli two other persons have been saddled with the liability of Rs. 1,90,762/-, without affording an opportmiity ofhearing. Accordingly, Ifae impugned order dated 27.1i.2006 (Annexiire P/l) was passed, directing the petitioner to deposit a siunofRs.63,587/-. 4. Leamed coimsel fiirtfaer submits that no punishmen* can be imposed without followmg principles of natiiral justice. Thus, the impugned order, based on 6. the enquiry at the back of the petitioner, is bad in law aad deserves to be qiiashed, in respect ofthe petitioner. Shri Y.8. Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate Geaeral, appearing for the State, submits that, admittedly, the petitioner was not afiForded aa opportiuuty of hearing before passing the impugned order, thou^i on preliminary enquiry it .«f has bee" found that the petitioner along with two other ofiTicers are respotisible for loss of the said amoimt. He fiirther sutnBts that the respondente/State be granted Ubert^? to take fresh action against the petitioner, in accordance with law, foUowing basis prmciples of tiatural justlce- In view ofthe foregomg, the petition <s allowed. The unpugned order dated 27.12.2006 (Annexure P/l) is quashed, in respect of Ihe petitioner. The State/respondents are at liberty to take any action, if so advised, agaiust the petitioner, m accordance witii law. No order as to costs. 'iSd/- ,, ' , Sstish K.Agnihotri I, Judge j