1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2753 of 2018 1 - Yogendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Shri Bhagwat Prasad Dewangan, Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Sub Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s) : “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned recovery order dated 1/3/2017 (Annexure - P/1) bearing No. F 4-18/2010/18 passed by the respondent No.2. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the entire amount which has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. iii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit -2- and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Sub- Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Korba. He would further submit that the article of charge was issued on 22.05.2013 to the petitioner with the allegations that while he was posted as Sub-Engineer in Nagar Panchayat, Kharod, he released the excess amount to the contractor and caused loss to the Nagar Panchayat to the tune of Rs.7,57,793/- and Rs.2,06,818/-. He would contend that the disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 01.03.2017. He would further contend that on the same date, respondent No.1 issued a separate order proposing recovery of excess payment made to the contractor. He would argue that the petitioner was already inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect, therefore, there was no occasion or reason for respondent No.1 to issue separate order proposing recovery without holding any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing, therefore, order dated 01.03.2017 vide Annexure P/1 is bad in law. He would pray to allow this petition. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Ajeet Singh Jat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in WPS No.4980 of 2009 decided on 01.07.2021. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr.Panda. She would submit that the petitioner has caused financial loss to the Nagar Panchayat to the tune of Rs.7,57,793/- and Rs.2,06,818/-, therefore, order of recovery has been issued by respondent No.1. She would further submit that 3 the petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing in the departmental inquiry. She would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The documents would reveal that while the petitioner was posted at Nagar Panchayat, Kharod, he released excess payment to one contractor and therefore, article of charge with similar allegations were issued to the petitioner. 6. The allegations are as under : “(अ) गौरव पथ में डब्ल्यू , बी . एमें . एव डमेंरकरण कयू - अर्थवर्क , मुरूमु र्क साली डेशन, डेब्ल्यू. बी .एमु. एव बी .टी. र्कयू र्क आयूटीमु मु किर्कयू गयू वस्तकिवर्क र्कयू सा मुप पस्तिस्तर्क मु अधि$र्क मुप दर्ज किर्कयू र्जन र्क र्करण रशिश रूपयू 7,57,793/- र्क अधि$र्क भुगतन हो,न पयू गयू। (बी) सी . आर . स्टोन मेंसीनर नली निनमेंण - स्टी,न मुसानर नली किनमुण र्क खुदई र्कयू, सा0डे कि1लिंली3ग, सा मुटी र्क किर्कटी एमु-10 तर्थ धिमुट्टी किडेस्पो,र्जली र्कयू र्क शिलीयू किर्कयू गयू वस्तकिवर्क र्कयू सा मुप पस्तिस्तर्क मु अधि$र्क मुप दर्ज किर्कयू गयू हो6। रिरन1,सामुटी स्टीली होत एसा.ओ.आर. दर सा अधि$र्क दर पर मुल्यू र्कन किर्कयू गयू। इसा र्करण इसा र्कयू होत रशिश रूपयू 2,06,818/- र्क अधि$र्क भुगतन हो,न पयू गयू।" 7. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was passed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 01.03.2017. 8. On the same date, separate order was issued by respondent No.1 proposing recovery against the petitioner. In the order impugned, the figure has not been disclosed. It is also evident from the material available on record, no inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and opportunity of hearing was also not afforded. 9. In the matter of Ajeet Singh Jat (supra), the Coordinate Bench held as under : “21.There is one more reason for not upholding the order of the Collector dated 7-7-2009. On the date of the order directing recovery of money i.e. 7-7-2009, the -4- petitioner has already been inflicted with minor penalty by order dated 6-12-2008 for the said misconduct by the competent authority which the petitioner has challenged in the earlier writ petition. Therefore, for one act of misconduct, a Government servant cannot be inflicted with two minor penalties simultaneously, one is withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect and another is recovery of ₹ 1,01,655-50 ps. which fall within 'minor penalties' under Rule 10(iii) and (iv) of the Rules of 1966. As such, imposition of two minor penalties for one act of misconduct cannot stand together and they are liable to be quashed.” 10.Considering the fact that the departmental inquiry was conducted and penalty of stoppage of two increments was passed, therefore, there was no reason or occasion for respondent No.1 to issue a fresh order with regard to recovery which would amount to double jeopardy and a person cannot be penalized twice for one offence. Accordingly, order dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. The amount which has already been recovered shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha