’ smgae Bench § 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [c.G.] WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6 g g ? /2008 PETITIONER Peer Mohammad Khan S/o Lal Khan aged—about 63 years, R/o Behind police line, Dharmjaigarh, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS 1 .State of Chhattisgarh Through— Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] 2. Van Sanrakshak, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur [C.G.] 3.Van Mandalaadhikari, Raigarh, Van Mandal, Distt.—Raigarh [C.G.] 4. Parikshetra Adhikari, Van mandal Ghargoda, Distt.— Raigarh [C.G.] 5.Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha Evan Pension, Bilaspur Division, Distt.— Bilaspur [C.G.] RESPONDENTS \Q’ovgo \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE ’ WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS V HIGH COURT OF CHHAT?§SGARH I BiLASPiJR WET PETWWN {S§ NO.685}7 OF 2008 ?ET;T1{JNERS 1 i i (Wfit Pet§€iw undea‘ Amaie 2'25 of the Comséi’imion 0f lndia) 1 Sing€e Bénch : Hon’bie Sim Safzsh K. Agnihetri, J. l ‘ ‘ ‘ \ @6 Peer Mohammad Khan. Versu$ State a‘f Chhattiggarh & Others §SP$NDENTS resent :- Ehi'i Sanjay Paiei, Advacate for the petiticner. 8hri P‘KBhaduri, Pane} Lawyerfcr the Staieirespondents. ORDER {ORAL} (Passed on this 2:3“ day 5f Febmary‘ 201 Q) With the consent of ieamed counsei appeaféng fer te pafiies, the peiit'ion is heam finaiiy‘ By this pe‘tmon, the petmone! chaiienges the iegamy and vaiidi‘ay of the ordei' dated 17.18.2GS8 (Amexure — W2) whereby end whereLmder the petitiower was; difec‘ked to deposii an ammmi a? Rmsszsme ’ Leamed counsel appewirig €er 'i‘ne petitienef submitsthat ihe petiticner feQiredimm ‘the gmst of Vanpai em 30—4—2G0fi Thereaftef, ihe respondent auihwi‘des Eave net reieased the pensian amamt a? ihe pei§tionen Hewever, a}! e§ a euddera by order éated ”17-1 G-ZQGa the authmities intimateé the petiticner that umess’ ane untii he depesiis aw ameum ef Rs.1,32,874i— tewarcis ices caused by him §n ‘the Ghergcda Depct, ihe pension she}! not be semeci. The impagned wder was passed in an mega! and arbiirary memer wiéheut cane’aciing propei’ enquiry. m absence of sueh enquiry, the impugned cider of reeovery is ne’i stietainabie iii ihe eye of iaw and ‘the same may be quashed. On'ihe other hand‘ ieamed ceunsei appeariiig fer the respomiems submits ihe mafier wes exaifniged by the caneeri‘aeai autheiities am i'nereaftei oaiy the impugned Veidei’was pee-sad. Thus, the petitiorier is not entitieci it) any ieiiei. vi have heard ieemed caunsei appearing fer the pariies, perused ihe pieeéinge and the documents agpended theiete. Admii‘tediy “the aiiegaiien ex‘ negiigeece eamiet be esiabiished Witheu’t hoidirig e‘ pioper enquiry. R h 6. n $ura3h Chandra Nanherya v. Rajzeiawa Rajak am Qthers‘, m i e $upieme‘Court obsewed as made? : 63 “8. Natural justice is am inseparable ingredient ‘ of fairness and reassnabieness. it is even said that the mincipies 0f natura} jusiice mu§ be read inte' unoccupieéi intemices of ' tm statute, uniess thre is a dear mamate to the ccntrary. 11. Natmaa justice .is the essence of fair adjudicaticn, deeply rooted in iradmon and conscienee, to be ranked as fundamentai‘ The purpose of foHowEng the principies of natumi justice is, the prevention of mienarriage of gustice.” 7. In Shekhar Ghosh v. Unien of indie and Anotherg, the Supreme Ceur:‘ whiie dea§ing ww} the serious eiiegatims made agamei the emphyee obeewea‘ as. uncier : “23 ...... Ai§ the necessary ingrediems cf principies 9f natun'al justiee were thus required te be comp!§ed with The appei5a‘et as neiiced hereihbefom had net been given adequate epportueiiy of hearing inasmueh as: (i) the heal'ing was seught f0 be. given was a spast- decisione! one, which is bed in iaw; (ii) a copy of the cempieim was not euppiied to the appeiient at furtherance if not propeeed that a mistake was’sought to be rectified; (iii) no charges were framed; (iv) m witness was examined; and (v) n9 inquiry officer arrived at any finding that the appeiiant was guiity 0f the charges ieveiied against him.” This Court in Genpati Fewer v. Staie Goyi. of Chhattiegarhg; observed a under: s “18. in the present case, rne pecuniary loss, as has been found to have been cause by ihe petitieners, is ire the tune cf Rs. 40 Lecs and odd. There are three asnects whieh have tr: be examined beiere impesiticn ci a penaity sf rescveryei financiaiipecuniary iess caused to the Gevernrnent. Fii‘stiy, what is the pecuniary ioss; secondiy, who was resnensibie tar, the ices; and thirdly, whether the iess was caused by negligence 'or breach oferder. it is net the case of the State that there was any 1 (2006) ‘7 sec 860 2 (2on7) 1 sec 331 , w n seee i WP (S) No.2935 er 200? decid a m e $3 m Sh?“ ye a3§§>§a $I£VJ¢ a}, 1 1 Tsar; wha is *r: i 8d]- Satish K. Agm'hotr-J Judge ighmg epf “i k xxh , Lu $ gua5he¢ 4 A i d w“ z'fa‘dz '%-i*imu, r suwmsimz am ‘§%a& wwk, I 4 4 ; aw, thwrigly: YE$X T ”a a . ~ if‘u raw *r§a€wt/ai .oy cau3én§ 2e 1w mu e“ ask; sosz aavaTseai i; f a Am: ‘é- :3]