lO IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHTTISGARH, AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^7 ^9 OF 2010 PETITIONER ^ ^.^ ^•^^ .1 ^ ^. "^y ...•"" ;«^- RESPONDENT ^" AWADH RAM KESHOR, AGED - 50 YEARS, S/0 SHRI H. R. KISHOR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS - ASSISTANT ENGINEER, AT - JANPAD PANCHAYAT, LOHANDIGUDA, DISTT. - BASTER (C. G.) VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH -THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MANTRALAYA, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, RAIPUR DIVISION, RAIPUR (C. G.) 3. THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, RAIPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICE DIVISION ABHANPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) Writ Petition Under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India ^L&-^L ^'^' 7j ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITSON (Sl N0. 769 OF 2010 Petitloner Awadh Ram Kishor Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnthotn, J.) Present:- Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy; Pane! Lawyerforthe State. 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 8th day of February, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned recovery order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Raipur (C.G.). Despite notice and after grant of sufficient opportunity, the respondent No.4 has chosen not to appear jn the matter. Learned counsel appsaring for the petitioner submits that the said recovery order has been passed by the respondent authorities without Issuing any notice and fojlowing the service ruies, therefore, the impugned recovery order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rules 14 & 16 of the Chhattisgarh Clvil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal), Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rufes, 1966"), hence the said recovery order be quashed. i have heard learned counsei appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the recovery order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) to recover a sum of Rs.93,68.000/- from the petitioner, was passed without issuing any notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case. '^^<,^ 2 \0\ Shri Kesharwani, submits that the issue involved in this petition is asto whether a sum of Rs. 93,68,000/- can be recovered, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case. Learned counsel further submlts that the identicai issue invoiving Identicai facts came up before this Court in W.P.No.2152/2002 (Sant Kumar and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and also in S'ddharth Gaikwad v. State of ChhaWsgarh & Others1. This Court he!d that recovery of amount without affording an opportunity of hearing is punittve and visits with civil consequences. Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the facts involved in this petition is identical to that of in the matter 6f SantKumar& Othersan6 SJddharth Gaskwad(supra). Rule 16 of the Rules, 1966, provides for imposition of penalty specified in Ciauses (i) to (sv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 after informing the government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour for which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. Rule 10 reads as under: "10 Penalties - The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely: (i) Censure; (ii) Withhoiding of his promotion; (iji) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary ioss caused by him to the Government by negiigence or breach of order; (iv) withholding of increments of pay or stagnation aiiowance; •W.P.fS) No.4555/2007 decided on 2.4.2008 i ^w t^ 'L it is a case where the recovery form pay of the petitioner has been ordered without following the due process of law as laid down in rule 16oftheRules,1966. 8. Learned counsel for the pet'rtloner submits that the respondents/ State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17122/2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Sant Kumar & Others) before the Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.1.2006 passed by this Court in Sant Kumar& Others (supra) and the same has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 9.10.2006 after condoning the delay. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointiy submits that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed in the case of Sant Kumar and others v. State of ChhaWsgarh and others and aiso in Siddharth Gaikwad v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others. Thus, the impugned order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) is bad in !aw, being punitive in nature and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee (petitioner) for putting forward his case. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed in the same terms i.e. the Impugned order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure P-1) directing recovery of amount from the petitioner, is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take any step, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following the process of law. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ashok