’\ iK (@@16% HIGH mURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR Writ Fetition (S) No. 4559 of 2667 EETITIONER KP. Allinvar; aged. 46 years, S/o Shri Cluhote Lal Ahirwar, Working as Technical Expert, at. Chhattisgarh Rural Poverty Reduction Project, Unit Basna, Rfo Bastia, District Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS . Stam of ClLhattisgarlL through thg Sgcrétary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, DKS BhawzuL Raipur, 2. The Project Director, Chhattisgarh Poverty Reduction Prcject, HQ A/l, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur (CG). 3. Chief Executive Officer, Nava Anjore—Chhattisgarh Rural Poverty Reduction Projeet, District Co-ordination, Unit Mahasamund (CG). 4. Co—ordinator, Project Execution Group Unit Nava Anjore Frojeci Basna, District Mahasamund (CG). 5. Executive Engineer; Rural Engineering Serviees Division, Mahasamund (CG). 6. Sub Divisional Officer, R.E.S. Sub Division Basna, District Mahasamund (CG). b... (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF Tfm CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotrh J.) Present : Shri R.K. Kesarwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent N0. l. Shri Ayaz Naved, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13m ofMarch, 2008) Notice have been served to all the respondents. Despite service, none appears for Le respondent No, 3,4,5 and (5. On 19. 12.2008, the respondent No. 2 to 4 were directed through Shri Ayaz Naved, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, to file an alfldavit asto why this ease be not disposed of in the light ofthe judgment and order dated 18.01.06 passed in W.P. No. 2125/02 (Sant Kumar & others Vs. State of Chltattisgarh & others). The State has also not tiled any return or written statement with regard. to specific query. Slni Ayaz Naved, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that he was informed by the respondent No. 3 and 4 that they are represented through the office of Advocate General. 3. Be that as it may, I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and domnnents appended thereto, it appears that the recovery order dated 13.07.07 (Annexure P/l) to recover a sum of Rs. 3,18,207l- )1x 3y from the petitioner, was passed withaut issuing any notiee and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put fomieu‘d his case‘ Shri R.K. Kesam/ani leamod couusaal appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Sub Engineer in Rural Engirleering Services Department, Govt. of ClLhattisgaJi. He iiuther submits that the issue involved L11 this petition is as to w._ether a sum of Rs.3,18,207/— can be recovered, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his ease. Learned counsel iiirther submits that. the identical issue involvinv identical facts came up before this Court in W.P. No. 2152/2002. (Sant Kuntar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). This Court held that recovery of amount witnout affording an opportunity of hearing is punitive and visits with civil consequences Slni Satish Gupta, Govt Advoeate, appearing for the State submits that the facts involved in this petition is identieal to that of in the matter of W P No. 2152/2002 (Sent Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Thust this matter appears to be squarely covered by decision of this Court passed in the matter of tSant Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) (Supra). Learned eounsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents/State of Chhattisgarh preferred a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17122i'20G6 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Sant Kurnar & others) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 18.01.2006 (supra), passed by this Court and the same has been dismissed by the Hon‘bie Suprnne Court vide order dated 09. 10.2006 after eondonino the delay. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submits that this ease is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 18.01 .2006 passed in the ease of Sant Kurnar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Supra). Thus, the impugned order dated 13.07.07 (Annexure P/l) and 02.07.07 “a “D @ (Annexure W2), am bad in law, being punitiw in nature and passed without aEording an opportunity of hemillg to tho concerned amployee (petitioner) for putting forward his case. The petition is acoordiiigly allowed in the iame temis iiex the impugned arder dated 13f)7i07 (Ahnexuie Pill) and 02’07‘07 (Pdmexure P12), directing recovery of amount from the petitioner, are hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take any steps, if so advised, in accordance with tow, aher following due process of law. No order asto eosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu