IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WritPetition No. 3%“; /2006 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner ....... Ram Lakhan Sahu, Son of Shri Mohan Sai Sahu aged about 5 years Mining Mate, @Ae V1. 9&9eM postéd at'Chhattisgari Minelial Development Cooperatlon, Dantewada, Bastar (C.G.). QW wfmw‘g’éwk Versus x} ‘Q a» QRqspondents 1) Chhattisgarh Mineral Development ta“ Corporation, Raipur, through Managing Director, Sonakhan Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2) Special Duty Officer (Administration), Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. HGH CGURT OF CHHATT‘sSGARH : B§L§R$PUR MM: Pei‘itim under Aaicie 226 0f the Comtkuiiea of india) Singie Bench : Hw’me SM Saiish K. Agnihatai J. Present :- Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate fog“ the petitioner, Sha’i AV. Smghar, Fane§ Lawyer for the £5tate. ORDER {SRAL‘} (Passed 0F. éhis 11" day of February, 201 0} \(A ’ With %he cansem of ieamed ccamse? awearinq far the gariées, ihe Deii‘i'ion is mam? f‘mauv. 3i By this wetitian‘ €he pet§€ioner cmiierages ihe §egai§éy and va§id§iy of the owe? dgzted 27-S-2QO$ (Annexure - W4} whamby and whereundef a dEmc’éen {a recever an ameum of §€s.18,83‘1i- ‘fmm the saéaw of ihe getE‘cicrier at ihe we 6f R$.1,€300}‘- per mornth, waa passecz. Leamed counse§ appeafing wf ihe geimower $ubmii$ Ehai Whan the oe€iiiene! was baking after the affairs of Tin Purchase Gama. Nerii. ‘ 0n 164:20G5 ara amcunt ef i :s.16,03’§i-‘was Stoieri by mismaam'a from the advance amount given i6 the petitioner. Fur ”mat the pei§€ioner lodgec! ihe repcrt 3n Peiice Siatirm Sasha}. but the sak‘l regori was cbsed. 0?! ihe groum’i ta‘aik éi‘iey coaid not fcund the miscreant. Thefea'éer. the respamiem amheréiies by iettar ciaied 7-3-2308 asked c§arifmation fmm the wetiticner aboui §he $91? amd the weiiticne! submittea’ his resaense i0 the $aic§ meme. However, on 27-5~206$ {Annexure — PM)? ‘ihe impugned mder was passed 'm an §l§ega§ aad afb§ifa¥y manmr wiihaut canciut’iing ymaer enquiry. m IT @ WRIT PETI‘HGN NO3885 ()F 2066 iTiONER Ram Lakhan Sam Veysas RESPONDEN‘E’S Shhatiisgarh Mineiai Dawiapmem Carperation 8. Ancthey absenca sustainabie § af such enquiry, ihe impugned order o¥ fecovery is mt n the eye of iaw and we same may be quashed. 4. {3n 'tm ether hand. i‘eamed courasei ammaring fer me respandaif‘ts subm1t$ man me feuovery can he maée from The sa§ary and a§icwan¢es e‘f the petmoner for causing ioss i0 the departmem dae i0 the nemxqence of ihe embiovnga “We maiier was exammed bv me cmcemea authentaes awd theleaFter omy “me imwgned crder was naswd Thus ihe peimena is mt em ea i0 anv rehef E have heafd learned caansei appegima fm’ fhe ”23 ...... th~ neceSaary maredlenis of prmuples of nature aetlce were tnue sesame». to be wmbnedsth Tm. ~ QCQO} / SKA; $CO ’200/g ’1 SCC q W . eadmes and the decumeme apoended meiete AdmMeeiy me auegattcm of negiigence camer be estawshed wimom holding proper enquiry. 6. in Sureeh Chandra Naahorya v. Rajemire Ra§ak and mheyeg, the Smpreme Cour? observed es under : maredieni ‘8. New; ‘ 3 Eustace of is ea“: inseparab $axme$s and reescheb euese if is evem said that the mmmpies of namhi ius‘ace must be reac: t9 unoceupaed miersbces a? the Jame {mime me e is a ”Sear mandaxe ~ i0 ine comra‘ry V3. Neiura‘ Metre as tee esee'ace ef §air adjudication deem}; rooted m t‘adaiLlm erd canecierire {a be rankexi ‘ as fwdameniea The mime of Io] is (mung ihe preverztian ihe pnncmées a? Nature! gueiare justce " 0i miccamage of wee amd Amway? the Suereme Sew: whi§e Geeiing With €he serious ailegeiiehe made agamef the emeicyee observed appeiiam as nat§ced heminbefme had Got been given ariequate agnartumw of heaying inaamuch as: {i} {he heahng was seught to be g§ven was a posi- éeaisicnal we, whim is bad {£3 iaw: {if} a copy of the compiamt was mt supéii’ecl m the aweHam a: furkherance if not woposed ‘thai a méstake was saught to be reciified; (iii) n0 charges we¥e framed; (iv) no witness was examined; and {v} no €nqu§ry offmer as"r§ved at am; ifindmg ihai the agpeiiani was gaiiiy of t§1e charges ieveHed against him.” E. This Court in {Sanpati Pawar v. $tate Qovi, of Qhhatiisgarhs‘ ob5ewed as under : “18. in i‘ne pa'esent case, the pecumary i055: as haa beer} faund t9 have béen cause by ihe petit§oners, is m the :une cf Rs. 40 Lac5 am Grid, There we twee a$peci$ which have ie be exammed befere Immasitian 9f a §5ena§€ry of {ecovew of 1§nanc§aiipecumayy 505$ caused t0 the Gowmment. Firsiiy, What is the pemmary ioss; second1y, whe wens responSibZe fw me msa am} ‘ii‘1irdiy, whseihesr the 165:3 was named by mg1§gemca 0r breach of anger. it is no’t the case of @13 State that there waa any breath cf the csdet0nly n$g3igence has been aEeged and found proved, on fepiy to fhe Show aause notioe. it was stated that the petitioners have failed to examine the éocumeof$ files? by the Contractor properiy and as 3ush, they were negiigeot. Further, t‘raey have {mi kepi proper supewis§on on the work. K}. The pfinokiie of audi alrerem pao‘em does noi comma to oniy toe Couas and juo’im‘m pmceeciings, but io other procoedings aiso, which resuit into e‘ffeoimg porsonfpmpmiy or other righ’is of me pari§es in impute. The orirac'ajoie appEes Wkh equa§ force m 4m mooeediogs, which effeci iiabiiiiy for iecovery of financiai ioss aim. r(\ 1. ' WP (S) NO 2‘ 9. Looking from aii aagies! inciuding gravity of ihe aiiega’tiom, ii is fequii’ea‘ to hoid reguiai enqoinj before establishim firStiv. the amoimt @ of loss caused ta the Staie; secsndEy, {he perwn Wm w responsibae forcauséng was, anci , %hir<:i§xi, whethar'wss was caugea bY neQéa§awe o! by breach of any arcier. Thus: the impugned m‘der dated fun 27-5-2OG§ {Annexure — §9l4)>i$ quashgd, x’esewing liberty m the :’:...-__ :A ggyA m PM respondemiaLx%hm§iie3 m how. an emmw fm estabiishing the above staieé fams and takmg appropria§e actécm ihea'eafier: if sa advised. 10. in the a‘ewit: the wit petiiicn is aHmwed to the extent indicated §b9ve. No owe? asto casts. n 7A”M mWww M A .H Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri i rsown _ Judge