2025:JHHC:28880 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2283 of 2013 Arun Kumar Singh, son of late Sushil Prasad Singh, presently residing at Church Mohalla, Daltonganj, Post Daltonganj, Police Station Daltonganj, District-Palamau ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, officiating from Daltonganj, Post Daltonganj, Police Station Daltonganj, District-Palamau ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV -------- Order No.08 /Dated: 18th September 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the letter as contained in Memo No. 95 dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure-6) issued by the 2nd Respondent whereby the petitioner has been directed to refund Rs. 14 Lacs and 11 Lacs i.e total Rs. 25 Lacs within seven days. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner amongst other grounds submits that this order has been passed without following the principle of natural justice inasmuch as no show-cause notice was given, no departmental proceeding was initiated and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the petitioner. 4. Even after going through the impugned order (Anenxure-6 to the writ application) it appears that there is no reference of any show-cause notice and/or any reply; there is no reference of any sort of proceeding whereby a decision was taken to recover the amount and these facts are not 2025:JHHC:28880 2 disputed even in the counter affidavit, save and except, that the petitioner has given two letters. Admittedly, the order of recovery is a punishment. The petitioner was a regular employee and any punishment has to go through the test of principle of natural justice and no order having civil consequences can be passed without affording proper opportunity to the concerned. 5. Normally, in such type of cases where there is procedural irregularity; the matter is remitted to the concerned authority to comply the procedure but since the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2014 itself; as such, relegating the petitioner again and giving liberty to the respondents again to start a fresh proceeding will not suffice interest of justice. Accordingly, the instant writ application is allowed and impugned order contained in Memo No. 95 dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure-6 to the writ application) is quashed and set aside and all consequential benefits shall be extended to the petitioner, if at all, any recovery has been made, the same shall be refunded. 6. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 18.09.2025 Amit