•itS. , • (S3;): . jcndireAej-eii-:(3T3i e-pa .iTiaire^s-tej.,! '.3:Q3::>3TT°3 • (33). s'e^S-ea-l.aiF^^STa: jBqseg '-iQq3s-[-[Q3 •^ . • :: '•'. " - • '...-. "(33) .leas-Ea'^'e^'Eqsy'ed ^tTZ •- . ' 333T33Q SAT^naaxg ja-ri.O QV[,L .^ • O'Bl-xe^ssa - q 3 T-I^ STa ' UQ'eBepuQ'^ 'yoTSTATa' ;3asui^;tBdsa sssjnossy -CS^EM '-tssiiTBug aATinasxs ST.II, . : (3.'3) ^ndT'ea '"l^daa 'sssjnpss'a: ..IS^EM ' A?s Co-id j-tOA^Sssg ;; ; TpBUEq-ew ' '-ISSHTgya 33TL[0 StIJ,, O'B) '-i.ndTsa ' s3ui:r[ tT.A.TO ' ^uam^.i'Bdsa ssojnossy ; - -[S^BM 'jSTLO-u-c-.lsauT.Bug 3(11, 0'o).—!:n<iTEg ''eXe-t^esviEvr 'i-i^Meqg "5"^"a 'qy3tU3«tBd3ci -aso-incissg - xsysiA 'fyeyaxaas. sq^ vS>nQ:IXSS 'II;Ee6sT:qSRi.[L[g::3:o" 33B3S ^ (^ .(s TT snsyaA " 03) •cnduEA-EjBN-^^STa '.I'e^sBg j:nduBAE-;ceis[ 'AUO'[03 UQT:^5T33I 'f'-H. 'QS" -C4& Q/'H .'-is^s'eg ';i:ndu'ej:B3EN '3U3UI3-[Ed3ET'" 33331-10333 JS^BM '.leST.itBug qng 's;['esA'' gs ^nocfE psBy ^TUUha:: -[Etnqeg TJIIS S^ET o/s 'fsiwa, '•S.' " (93) ^ndU'E.^B-IBJSt-q^STa '-I'e^e'Eg • ';: 3:'Rc[TreAB2Eii 'AlPTGS ' 'llQT^'BBf-l-1!' -a : •PN'^^O '• : .o/a ^-[S^SBS, '.inaiTBje.iSN ' ^ti3ui33:'ed3(:i ss?;cnosaH -isq^M., :;,.,'< <.I9aT:3JO, -[^UOTS-tATa Cplg ' ' SJ'ESA. ZS ^hoqE ps£v ;'ygyTS ueiUEqs o/S 'qSu-tS •d-Bf. o^f^e r^^ siNaaNoasaH ..^'..-•- ^"^s^ ;^i^y ^ saaNoi.Liiad Z0()?/ ^--^(g'-ON^^sy-d -M (•o'slanas'yiia.LVaansvsignr ao lanoo HSIH ani NI i^^^ f ° ^ l^C^^'^^MffiS^syKfiS^^^s^S®^^^^^^^^^-^^^^^ SjS^^5i®y%) -/.": ../ WRIT PETItION UNDER ARTICLE 226^227 OF THE CONStITUTION^ .OF.^Iiroi&^ FOR [ISSa&NGEs^^ NATURE OE GERTI©tUU^,,&;KSNBAMaS, ; PRQHEBiTIfW^^^,^^ FOR OTHER SUITABEE WEJT^ !OR, W^ DIREGTION OR BlREGTIONS , ^'^ t-t mOH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 3126 of2007 PETmQNER : R.P.Sm^i & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofCtAattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmjTION OFINDIA - .:-..-,1..,-^ SB: Hori'Me Shri Satfsh K. Asntlwtri. J. Present: Smt FouziaMirz?,AdvocatefiM-thepefitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/resppndant Nu. 1,2,3,4,6 and7. : Shri Shailendra Shamia, Advocate fortiie respondentNo. 5. ORDERfQRAU (Passed an 06ta day 6f Jmuary, 2Q11) w, 1. Challenge in flris petition is to tlw order dated 05.05.2W7 (Annexyre P/5) passed by tiie respondent No. 5, whereby both tfae petitioners were directed to deposit 50% of1he amount alleged to be embezzled i.e. Rs. 2,57,205A. ^ 2. The facts, in nutehell, are that the petitioners were working as Sub Engineer in the Offiee of the Sub Divisional Offiew, Narayaapur, District Bastar. In tfae year 2004-05, under the scheme of'Kamte badle Anaj Yojna' (for short the seheme') Ae e<nistruction of Kerlapal Stop Dam aad Kerlapar Tar Band was sanctioned and Ifae aforesaid works were carried oirt under fhe supervision of flie Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kondagaon, under whom the petitioners were assigied to look after Ae said work- Qn Ihe basis of some complamts received bythe office ofthe CoUeetor, an enquiry team was constituted and on the report submitted by the enquiry team, the unpugned order ofrecovery was passed. , 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners subnats tfaat vide the show cause notiee dated 11.7.2006, the petitionCTs were directed submit their e^laaation asto why actfon may not be taken against them to whieh tiie petitioaers have replied on 01.09.2006. Smt. Miiza farther suhniits thst petiticmers have not been afforded prapeac opportunity ofhearing nar they have been siqylied the eop^toflfae enquiry report which has beea conducted behind their back. The petitioners were proyided enquiry report after lapse ofmorethan 6 months vide letter dated 30.04.2007. Toutter surprise of ftie petitioners, taking into account the second eaquiry report sutoutted by the second enquiry team oa 01.05.2007, withoutafifordmgaa opportunity to fhe petitioners to'put forward tiieir case, the impu^ed order ofreeovery ofthe aforestated amount has been passed. ;q;;5 4. Notices were issued in this petition on 16.05.2007. Tilt date, no retum has been filed by the State/respondent No. l to 4, 6 and 7, and respondent No. 5. However, Ihe State/respondent No. 1 to 4,6 & 7 fa^ filed preliminary objection without replying to •the contentions ofthe petitiona", on menfc 5. This Court, vide order dated 16.05.2007, directed lliat no recovery shaU be made pursuant to the order dated 5.5.20Q7 (Annexute P/5) wittiout holding proper enquiry after giving an opportututyofheaaaig to thepetitioners. •• i-.:..i:w»^ 6. Heard leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties, perused the pleadings anddocuinfintsappendedthereto. ;: •-.-• ..^ .:..ss -"^KEKra^fr^a -^y-^- st^'i^A^. ^s^,S3ffiB*i*iiu)>uuLuiiB. SiSBBaaeB '^'^SSS^^^^^^Ss^:^^ ®<K; >!(.•;- m .-< 7.^ On perusal of (he pleadmgs, it a^years Ihat the impugned order of recovery has been passed witfaout afifording an opportutrity ofhearing to the petitioners when the same is based on fhe finding reoorded by fhe seeond enquiry team. The basic foundation ofthe principte of aitdi alteram partem i.e. no one shouldbe condemned iinheaB^ has tiot been fbllowed in fhiscase. • ...^ - •^ ^^.:::-::.^ - 8. Iti Ashok Kumar Sonkarv. Union oflndia &0ther^, ftie Supreme Courtobserved as under: ^..—^.^ w-.:,-^., "26. Tto brings tous thequestionas to •wheffwr , the principles cf^naMwl jusfice'v^ere^reySii'f^^ to be complied mth. There ccmnotlw twiy^Siubt s whatsoever ffiat ttie cnuh att^mnpsrtevf'f&fMeJ't of the basic pillars of natwal justiee •whiek !i means no one should becondemnedia'iKearS.'l Hawever, whenever possible the prineiple qf 3v natural justice should be foltow^0rdmecri]y^^ in a case of this nature the semie shauldihe f ctmiplied ^th. Visttar fnay wagtven^sWHati^y^ issue notice to the emplcyee who •wcwtd he f effected by the ultimate order 'yKS^ma^.^^'}^ passed. He may not be giyen cm or'al.heafh'ig, f but may be allo'wed tciMaleea'r^ireswitatuM[w(^ •miting. , '-::.,,::;,- ,. :.:'rf:.^,- :' 9. The Supreme Court, in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of Indw & « OiAers, the Supreme Court observed as under: . ulO...When a govermnent servant is facing a ; disciplinary proceeding, he u:^enttt^:'fs^'bs^. afforded a reasonable <yportunity to meet.thes » c5toyg^^ga»^A»»^^e^<rtn«^a»neg^»(:^^ no one facmg a departnienttil erupiy.can v ^fectively meet thechar^s.ttntes^tlie'vcswWf^V'' the relevant statements and docwnents, to iwss^ used againsthim are made availableto him.^w » the absence of such copiw^i^ww'cvtt^:1:he';.^^ concemed emplayee p paw his deftnee.^fwss^ 4 examine the wtnesses, <md pomt^ ouC^ We ^ . mconsistencies with a view to show.that the s atlegations areincredible?" , , - '(2007)4SCC54 2 (1986) 3 SCC 229 10.In Gov(. ofAJ>. & Othersv.AVerhitaRaicht,iiSaa SupremeCoiut observed as under: "9...It is a settled principle of natural justice that if cmy material is sought to be useSmcm enquiry, then copies ofthat material shouldbe . supplied to the party c^ainst wfiom such"' enquiryishetd... " ;» ll.^plyingthe well settled iwiacqrfes of law to the fects ofthe mstant , ease, prejudice caused to the petitfoner is vmt largs ^ iaateetiee ,; jwoper opportunity to Ifae petitioners to put forward titeir case ia^ „ defence. Thus, Ifae impugied order dated 05.05.2007 (Annenu-e P/5) arequashed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ „ 12. Consequently, the vwit petition is allowed to the above eident. 13.However, the State/i'espondents shall be at liberty to take apprc^)nate action, ifso advised, after aflfording due opportunity ofheatmgtplfae ^ petitioners and after IbUowing fhe princqries ofBaturaljustiee. i 14. There shall be no order asto eosts. r , Sd/- . SatishJgSIAgniliotri •e'-.-:' ^T (2007) 1SCC 338 [