1 2025:CGHC:8643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6280 of 2016 1 - Jitendra Gouraha S/o Shri Raghav Vallabh Gourha, Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Chief Supervisor, District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Branch Beltara, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative Society, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Director, Co-Operative Society Committee, Composite Building Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Salka, Through Its President Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Salka, Beltara, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Board Of Management, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Salka, Beltara, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Saurabh Sharma with Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocates For Respondent/State : Ms. M.Asha, Panel Lawyer For Respondents 3 and 4 : Shri R.L.Rajak, Advocate on behalf of Shri D.K.Swain, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 19/02/2025 Following relief(s) has been claimed in this writ petition - 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / writs, order/orders, direction/directions commanding and directing the respondents – authorities to quash order/memorandum Annexure P/1 issued by the respondents No.3 &4 and declare the same as without jurisdiction. 10.2 Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an employee of District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. He submits that in the relevant point of time the petitioner was assigned with the duty of Supervisor of the society for procurement of paddy including respondents 3 and 4. For that purpose, the petitioner appointed one Salesman namely Bharatlal Kashyap and a Data Entry Operator namely Vinod Kumar Kaushik and they are the employees of respondents 3 and 4. An undated letter (Annexure P/1) was sent by respondent No.3 to the petitioner, Salesman Bharatlal Kashyap and Data Entry Operator Vinod Kumar Kaushik indicating therein that during paddy procurement performed by them in the year 2013-14 with respondent No.3, shortage of 2626.00 quintals of paddy was found and because of financial charge, the present petitioner, Bharatlal Kashyap and Vinod Kumar Kaushik were found guilty of loss of amount of Rs.4538484.60p. which is to be recovered from them. It also indicates that as per proceedings dated 28/05/2016 No.5, the said amount may be deposited in the bank account of respondent No.3 and submit a certificate otherwise legal action will be taken against the petitioner. He submits that before issuing such an order of recovery, the petitioner was never served with any show cause notice nor any enquiry was conducted against him. Only a resolution was passed by respondent No.3 thereby decided to recover the said amount from the petitioner and other two persons. He submits that the petitioner is an employee of the bank and the service conditions are not under the control of respondent No.3. The impugned communication (Annexure P/1) is without jurisdiction and without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, he submits that the impugned communication (Annexure P/1) may be set aside. 3. Learned State counsel submits that learned State counsel submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4. 4. Return has been filed by respondents 3 and 4 wherein it has been stated that only a show cause notice was given to the petitioner. It has been stated that the centre 3 of paddy procurement was under the supervision of the petitioner and two other persons, therefore, the impugned letter was issued to them asking them to deposit the amount towards shortage of paddy failing which action as per law would be taken against them. It has been further pleaded in the return that on verification, for the sale of the concerned period, 2626 quintals of paddy was found short. The value of shortage was estimated to be Rs.4538484.60p. It has been further pleaded that this writ petition is premature as no legal action has been taken against the petitioner as such. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 makes submission in the light of return filed by them. 5. From perusal of record, it appears that an undated letter was communicated to the petitioner and a direction was given to deposit the abovestated amount in the account of respondent No.3. It does not appear as to whether any departmental enquiry was conducted giving an opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case of the petitioner. The return is also silent with regard to any enquiry conducted against the petitioner to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for shortage of the paddy as alleged in the letter (Annexure P/1). No document has been placed on record by respondents 3 and 4 with regard to any enquiry conducted against the petitioner. 6. In view of above, Annexure P/1 so far it relates to the petitioner, cannot stand and it appears that the decision has already been taken without there being any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend himself. Therefore, Annexure P/1 is quashed so far it relates to the petitioner, however, liberty is reserved in favour of respondents 3 and 4 to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and after following the principles of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.02.21 12:10:49 +0530