1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1436 of 2017  Jalandhar Pradhan S/o. Shri Ghasi Pradhan, Aged About 60 Years R/o. Kokadi Patsendari, Post Via Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through, The Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Directorate, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Panchayat And Social Welfare Direcorate, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Utkal Pradhan, Adv. For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16-07-2025 1) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 19/22.08.2016 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali whereby order of recovery of Rs. 44,000/- Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.16 16:25:52 +0530 2 has been passed against five persons including petitioner. 2) In the order dated 19/22.08.2016, it was observed that five employees including petitioner submitted bills to respondent No. 3 without verifying the TIN numbers and the authority concerned approved them. Respondent No. 3 assessed the amount of loss, and issued a common order against five employees to the tune of Rs. 44,000/-. Petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 9,900/-. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show-cause notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded by respondent No. 3 before issuing the order dated 19/22.08.2016. He prays to set aside the order impugned. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents oppose. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Perusal of documents annexed in petition would show that order Annexure P/1 i.e. recovery order was passed on 19/22.08.2016. Thereafter, petitioner made representation before respondent No. 3 on 02.09.2016 and authority concerned considered the same and passed a detailed order on 27.12.2016. 7) Though, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the order dated 19/22.08.2016 but the respondent No. 3 considered the representation moved by petitioner and passed a fresh order on 27.12.2016 wherein it is stated that representation moved by petitioner was not found satisfactory. 3 Also, the amount payable by the petitioner is only Rs. 9,900/- and the orders were passed way back in the year 2016. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that order of recovery passed against petitioner would not affect his service career in future. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya