XI-H6—78 SHT^T W (({•fi'* WT 3)1^1 »*<ro ,\- HI*1CtT «>*1|tt» 'TSET "41'41d4, e>t)l<H4ie, fsKll'My . UO -f- Kla • 2.3 1 Jf^ 200 s- SfI^T T^T ('^3^tT) TOIIW ^sfeT sii^r PETiTIONER: -VereUs RESPONDENTS: (Writ Petition under Article Sinqle Bench;_Hon' 15-10-2 Shri Alok Dewangan, couns Shri PK Bhaduri, PL for the Shri Praful! Bharat.counsel Heard. The grievance of the petitic) operative Society, Chhattisgarh has ordered recovery of Rs." Commercial Advance from gratuit^ husband after his death, without of hearing to the petitioner. ct>T^[<ii<fli ^wwi ^f TS^ <f^(^,l< 'lT3iRn3n^?r Smt. Pratima Roy Choudhary, W/o Late Shri Alok Roy Choudhar/, aged about 34years, Ri'o Dharampura No.2, Qr.No.H-21, Post Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District Basfar (CG) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretan/, Department of Co-operatiye Societies, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG) Registrar, Co-operative Chhattisgarh, Raipur(CG) Societv, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jagdalpur (CG) Ja; Manager, Vipnan Sahakari Sanstha Mar^adit, Narayanpur, Districi Basiar (CG) 1226/227 ofthe Constitution of india) ble Shri Dhirendra Mjshra, J. for the petitioner. ptate/respondents No. 1 to3 for respondenf No.4 ictner vUe .ib, aiy is that respondent No.2 Registrar, Co- order dated 16-9-2004 of Annexure-P/1 ,73,390/- towards Personai Advancs, and Generai Provident Fund aceount of her notice or without affording any opportunity .^•^ ISS? -HC—7S ^•'^."i.ii^iy^-pifllwis, fs<di'yy,< __^ •f'iM&. 2-Q, f ^WW (h*ll ch ••---;;--"-"------^200 ? SlI^T'q^T (1clij«<<IEl) an^i ^rftffe ^WT 3TT^T sRTlNr ^tllWdfer an^i '"-Undisputed facts are that h CM<l^*H'rt 'WT?tf "^f 'fe1^ '^RgTC ^aifroaiita sband of the petitioner namely Alok Roy Chouciharff' was worklng as Sub A^ditor in the office of the Assistant Registrar, ^.Audjt, Co-bperative Societies, Jagcjalpur. He was put under suspension and served with a c'narge-sheet for cha(^es of defaicstion, embezzlement and non- ' maintenance of account ete. Afte)' enquiry, the Enquiry Officer in his report found charges against the delinqu^nt employee proved. However, before the Discipiiriary Authonty could take |any action against him, husband of the petitioner died in a road accidenfl. After the death of the husband of the p&titioner, impugned order. of Anijisxure-P/l for recovery of the amount of Rs.10,73,390/-, as per report of th|e Enquiry Officer, was passed without any show-cause notice to the petitioner|or lega! heirs of the deceased employse. Since the order of recover^) (Annexure-P/1) has been passed against the delsnquent employee after his submitted by the Enquiry Officer, opportunity of hearing to the peti] death on the basis of the enqulry report Without any notice or without affordjng any foner, the same cannot be sustained snd accordingly the same is set a^de. However,it shai! be open to the respondents to pass appropriate |order of recovery on the ba'sis of enquiry report after affording opportunity o^hearing and due notice to the petitioner. / Thepetition is,accordingly,|disposed of. F- :~ __ /;, .,-,-...-.....,.,,^.-,-^--.. i,.^;;,,:sd/-. ';:;--^'- ; "Dhirendra Mishra^ Judge ^^-'s ^•""H