Tulsidas Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to annexure P/1 dated 13/12/2017 whereby the order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,14,442/- has been

passed.

The primary contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, the order of recovery has been passed behind the back of the petitioner. It is

contended that no proper notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuance of the order of recovery. She further

submits that, the decision was taken in a meeting which was held by the Deputy Collector and in the meeting itself the impugned order has been

passed.

It is settled position of law that before passing of an order having adverse civil consequences, an opportunity of hearing is a must.

The impugned order in the instant case is an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.1,14,442/-. As such it stands established of having adverse civil

consequences.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition also stands squarely covered by the decision of

this Court in WPS No. 2576/2017 and prayed for the present Writ Petition to be allowed in similar terms.

The State counsel however opposing the petition submits that, from perusal of the impugned order it appears that, there was some sort of mis-

appropriation found against the present petitioner and the committee which had inquired into the matter has passed the impugned order and as such

there does not appear to be any discrepancy in the impugned order.

Having heard the contention put forth on either side and on perusal of record it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the first three lines

of the impugned order which for ready reference is reproduced herein under:

2015-2016 07-07-2017 .. (

) Â 02 (

, ) /

: -

Upon perusal of the aforesaid contents by itself would clearly reveal that, infact no enquiry whatsoever either departmental or preliminary was

conducted before passing of the impugned order of recovery. Further it also revealed that, before the impugned order was passed, no notice

whatsoever was issued to the petitioner, neither was any explanation sought from the petitioner before quantifying the amount of recovery.

An opportunity of hearing all the more is required in such circumstances for the simple reason that, if the petitioner does not challenge the same and

permits the respondents to recover the said amount, the said act would amount to an admission on part of the petitioner of mis-appropriation of funds.

It can also be detrimental to the petitioner in his service carrier where the said order of recovery can be used by the employer detrimental to the

service carrier or in the carrier growth of the petitioner.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, the impugned order is not sustainable for the simple reason that, it

is by now well settled that any order of the government or for that matter any order which has an adverse civil consequence, the same has to be

passed only after giving a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In the instant case, since there does not appear to be any such proceedings drawn by the respondents, the impugned order is not sustainable and

the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside, so far as the petitioner's case is concerned.

However, the liberty is reserved for the concerned respondent to hold preliminary/departmental enquiry whatever they deemed fit and after

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner they may pass suitable order in the light of the findings arrived at.

With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed off.