1 2025:CGHC:35894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3423 of 2021  Komal Das Ghritesh, S/o Late Shri Jhalar Das Ghritesh, Aged About 62 Years Retired A.C.F. (Assistant Conservator Of Forest), R/o Om Nagar, In Front Of Prabhakar Memorial School, Jarhabhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, New - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Katghora Forest Division, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate along with Ms. Sakshi Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 that, the respondent may kindly be directed to submit the entire records as regards the petitioner's case. 10.2 that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.25 18:38:59 +0530 2 case including cost of the petition. 10.3 that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly issue direction to the respondent No. 3 to withdraw annexure-P/3 and further he may be directed not to issue any letter to recover any sum in future.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner got retired from services on account of superannuation on 31.08.2020 from the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Katghora. He would further submit that the respondent authorities issued No Dues Certificate on 23.06.2021 and it was countersigned by respondent No. 3. It is argued by Mr. Narayan that after retirement, respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice expressing its view to recover an amount of Rs. 2,28,700/-. He would also submit that an amount of Rs. 2,28,700/- has been withheld by the respondent authorities from the retiral dues of the petitioner. He would further argue that the order of recovery is a penalty according to provisions of Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1966”) and it could not be passed against a Government servant without holding an enquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing, Thus, he would pray to quash the said order. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State, would oppose. He would submit that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Katghora. He would further submit that the petitioner had participated in that enquiry, and he was afforded sufficient opportunity. He would contend that the petitioner filed a reply to the show- cause notice issued by the respondent authorities, and after the submission of the enquiry report, the impugned notice dated 12.04.2021 3 was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Katghora. He would further contend that the petitioner has completed Cattle-Proof Trench (CPT) work without the sanction of the budget and failed to make payment of wages to the labourers. He would also submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. In the present case, the order of recovery has been passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Katghora, on 12.04.2021 against the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,28,700/-. The allegation against the petitioner was that in the absence of proper budget, he completed the work of Cattle-Proof Trench and failed to make payment of wages to the labourers and after his retirement, this fact was brought to the notice of the respondent authorities, therefore, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer and the order impugned was passed. 6. Perusal of the enquiry report and the show-cause notice would show that the enquiry was not initiated according to the provisions of the Rules, 1966; rather, it was an enquiry conducted by the superior authorities. Admittedly, the order of recovery is a penalty under Rule 10 of the Rules, 1966, and such a penalty cannot be inflicted without holding a proper departmental enquiry either under Rule 14 or Rule 16 of the Rules, 1966. 7. In the present case, an enquiry was conducted, but it was not conducted in consonance with the provisions of Rule 14 or Rule 16 of the Rules, 1966; therefore, the enquiry report and its outcome are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. 8. The order of recovery was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer after the retirement of the petitioner, and prior to it, No Dues Certificate was also 4 issued, and it was countersigned by the Divisional Forest Officer, Katghora. Accordingly, the order Annexure P/3 dated 12.04.2021 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to release the withheld amount of retiral dues. 9. As a result, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant