5’? tw// Sham Bemw G) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [C.G.] WRIT PETITION (SI No. ILCIGG /2009 / PETITIONER Jagannath Prasad Yadav S/o late Sri Sukhram Yadav Agediabout 6O years, Peon (Bhritya), Government Higher Secondary School, Sariya, Block- .Baramkela, Distt.— Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS f, 1.State of Chhattisgarh Through— Secretary, School education department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.} "r 2. Joint Director, Treasuries, accounts and pension, Bilaspur [C.G.] ‘/ 3. District Education Officer Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh[C.G.] “’4. Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Sariya, Block- Baramkela, Distt.- Rajgarh [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1000 of2009 PETITIONER : Jagannath Prasad YadaV. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri D.R.Pate1, Advocate for the petitioner. ‘Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 07 day of April, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the communication dated 02.02.2009 (Annexure P/S) whereby a sum'of Rs. 403/- has been directed to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner for the month of January, 2009 and it has been further directed to recover a sum of Rs. 30,000/— in 25 installments of Rs. 1200/— each, from the petitioner holding it to be excess payment made to him, on account of wrong fixation of his salary.. 2. Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Peon at Govemment Higher Secondary School, Sariya, District Raigarh, The petitioner received a communication dated 02.02.2009 (Annexure P/5) issued by the respondent authorities, whereunder a sum of Rs. 403/— has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner for the month of January, 2009 and it has further been directed to recover a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in 25 installments of Rs. 1200/— each, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, on account of wrong fixation of salary. Shri Patel further submits that the punitive order of recovery has been passed Without affording an opportunity of‘hearing to the petitioner. He further contends that the issue? asto whether recovery of excess payment for, no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longe‘r res integra. The same has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State ofBihar and othersl). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing relimd of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. 4. Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Shri Bhaduri further submits that since no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the impugned order, liberty may be granted to the respondent/State to take steps for recovery of any excess amount after following the due process of law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. It is a trite law that no order prejudicing the interest of an employee can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is not the case of respondents that opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and the present case is such wherein notice of hearing is to be dispensed with. 6. The Supreme Court, in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & another v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2)2, observed as under: “35. Any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice .save and except certain contingencies of cases, would be a nullity, In A.R.Antulay this Court heldz' (SCC p. 660, para 55) ' l ,(2009) 3’ scc 475 2 (2009) 4 soc 299 .V e M‘i “55. No prejudice need be proved for enforcing the fundamental rights. Violation of a fundamental right itself renders the impugned action void. So also the violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity.” 47. The purpose of the principles of natural justice is of miscarriage of and hence is prevention justice the observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action. (See Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance C0. Ltd). 7. Accordingly, the impugned order 02.02.2009 (Annexure P/5) directing of the in 25 recovery of a sum of Rs. 30000/- from the salary petitioner installments of Rs. 1200/- each, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount, subject to verification of facts. However, liberty is reserved to the take if advised, in accordance with State/respondents to any steps, so law for recovery of excess payment, if any. 8. The petition is allowed to the extent indicatedabove. 7s 9. t Sd/. la There shall be no order asto costs. (V Satish K, Agnihotri f .I _ Judge l l Amit l