. prayer (Copy of £10.; ugtoaate £»1;nexLIre-P/7,I amende& petition éra§er 2A para am; 12A, 4A7a<i<ied) 12B, in IN 1m gIgLCOURT 0g mgHgA mwwyx m: J‘AmLPUR. g.P;No‘.1 01/93 FE‘TmIoxJgg s Gajanand Patel son of Makhan Lal Patel, aged about 28 years, Lower Division Clerk, re$ident of Care of N at p Tailors, ssipat chowk, Sarkézgia: Bilaspur (M.P.) *VerSUS" l. Indira Gandhi Krishi' Vishwa— Vidyalaya, Raipur, through its Registrar. RES 120mm '13s u 2. aenior Scientist, Indira Gandhi Krishi ‘Vishwavieyalaya, l Regional Agrieultural Research Staticn, Sarkanda, BilaspurUVIP). Pm‘IDION UNDERARTmLee 226/227 02v THE comem‘rwmm OF INDEAE F£R I§&UANL§ Q1 WEET IN;1‘HE__N_£_§TURE OF ERTIORA muaca aggmcrrmRa/mw 022 WRI Te. mama R ORDERE: DIRECTION (R HREC"ICNS. CRI m O HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 101 of 1993 PETITIONER : Gajanand Patel. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Raipur & another. PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aqnihotti J. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08t day of January, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner, who is a Lower Division Clerk in the respondent department, seeks a direction to quash the order dated 22.7.2003 (Annexure P/23) so far as it relates to recovery of Rs. 20,579.75 and to grant consequential benefits . The facts, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 23.1.1984 (Annexure P/1) wef. 17.01.1984 on account of certain financial irregularities. Thereafter, vide order dated 7.4.1993 (Annexure P/7) the petitioner was terminated from service. On 22.08.1994 (Annexure P/-8A), the termination order Was set aside by the respondents and the petitioner was reinstated in service and posted at Zonal Agricultural Research Centre, Ambikapur. Later on, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 01.03.2001 (Annexure P/20) alongwith a copy of enquiry report dated 13.01.1999 (Annexure P/21) which was replied by the petitioner on 12.03.2001 (AnnexureP/22). Thereafter, the petitioner received the order dated 22.7.2003 (Annexure P/23) whereby a sum of Rs. 20,579.75 was \\ Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. directed to be recovered and the enquiry was dropped. It was further stated in the said order that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the enquiry has been dropped, there was no reason to impose a penalty of recovery of Rs. 20,579.75. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. lt appears that without holding proper enquiry, a direction to recover a sum of Rs. 20,579.75 has been ordered. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the fact that no enquiry was held before ordering recovery of the amount. Thus, indisputably, the principles of natural justice and fair play in action has not been followed before imposing punishment of recovery. Thus, the order dated 22.07.2003 so far it relates to recovery of Rs. 20,579.75 is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with the law after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so advised. With regard to the promotion and other consequential benefits is concerned, the order dated 22.7.2003 (Annexure P/23) is very clear wherein it is stated that after dropping of the enquiry, the petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits. Therefore, no order is necessary in respect of prayer clause 2B. The’ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. & v—‘if‘:‘ l i Sd/~ Satish K. Agnihotti Judge Amit