1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2007 of 2023 Radheshyam Tiwari S/o. Shri Gendram Tiwari, Aged About 59 Years Assistant Revenue Inspector, Municipal Council, Kanker, District - Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Municipal Council Kanker Through Its - Chief Municipal Officer, Kanker, District - Kanker (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Shri Dinesh Yadav, Sanitary Inspector And Presently- The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Kanker, District- Kanker (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Mohhammad Salman, Accountant (Account Branch), Municipal Council, Kanker, District - Kanker (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Ku. Monika Vatti, Assistant Grade - Iii (Establishment Branch), Municipal Council, Kanker, District - Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 26.08.2025 1 The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining the concerning matter. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.26 18:27:36 +0530 2 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondents Bank to quash the impugned order, dt. 30/01/2023 (Annexure-P/1). 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay the deducted amount of Rs. 5,097/- with interest to the petitioner. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as deem fit and proper with cost of petition.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned recovery order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.1 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the petitioner, who is working on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and is due for superannuation on 01.05.2023, has been falsely fastened with a liability of recovery without any basis. It is submitted that earlier vide letter dated 01.04.2022 (Annexure-P/2), the petitioner was directed to produce vouchers of adjustment of advance alleged to have been granted during the financial year 2008–2013, failing which recovery was proposed. In compliance, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 05.04.2022 (Annexure-P/3) along with relevant audit reports clearly demonstrating that no advance was pending to be adjusted against him. Despite such categorical clarification, the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 was 3 issued, directing recovery of Rs. 92,750/- from the petitioner and three other employees. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.60,000/- has been illegally imposed upon the petitioner on the ground that the advances granted during 2011-12 were not duly adjusted. It is urged that the petitioner had been allotted Rs.10,000/- for Dussehra and Ramleela celebrations and Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of snacks and sweets, both of which were duly adjusted through voucher No. 579 dated 04.10.2011 and voucher No. 1004 dated 23.01.2012 respectively. A detailed representation in this regard was again submitted on 01.02.2023 (Annexure-P/4). Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a limited prayer that the respondent authorities be directed to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners vide Annexures-P/3 and P/4 in a limited time frame. 3 Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the nature of grievance raised in the writ petition, and keeping in view that the petitioner has made a limited prayer for consideration of his representations, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to enter into the merits of the rival claims at this stage. Since the petitioner has already submitted detailed representations dated 05.04.2022 (Annexure-P/3) and 01.02.2023 (Annexure-P/4), enclosing the relevant audit reports and vouchers in support of his contention that no amount remains outstanding, the ends of justice would be 4 served, if the competent authority is directed to decide the same in a time-bound manner. 4 Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide the petitioner’s aforesaid representations vide Annexures P/3 and P/4 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 45 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 5 It is made clear that till such decision is taken on the pending representations, no coercive recovery shall be made from the salary, retiral dues, or pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Needless to say, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the authority concerned shall take an independent decision uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh