1 2025:CGHC:32750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5184 of 2024  Sudhir Kumar Verma S/o Late Babulal Verma Aged About 62 Years Occupation - Assistant Manager Technical,last Posted Kasdol R/o District - Baloudabajar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through The Chairman, 22 Anand Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Managing Director C.G. State Warehousing Corporation , 22 Anand Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Manager Karmik State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be quashed the Order dated 01.04.2024. 10.2 That, the Respondent may kindly be directed to provide the family pension GPF and payment of Earned Leave to the Petitioner with interest of 12% from the date of his retirement. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.17 17:11:18 +0530 2 petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner got retired from the post of Technical Assistant on 30.06.2024. He would further submit that vide order dated 01.04.2024, respondent No. 2 issued an order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 54,73,770/- on the ground that the petitioner caused a loss to the employer while he was posted at Branch Bagbahra from 14.11.2005 to 16.092012, Branch Bhanupratappur from 27.08.2012 to 16.07.2016, Branch Kanker from 01.08.2016 to 16.11.2021 and Branch Kasdol from 01.02.2022 to 01.04.2024. He would also submit that no enquiry was conducted before passing the order impugned of recovery. He would contend that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1966 (for short “Rules, 1966”), as well as the CG State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962 (for short, “Regulation, 1962”), provide for an enquiry before inflicting any punishment. He would contend that even the show-cause notice was not issued to the petitioner and directly the order impugned was passed. He would pray to quash the order. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate appearing for the respondents would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has a remedy to prefer an appeal according to the provisions of Regulation 27 of the Regulation, 1962. He would further submit that a committee was constituted and the enquiry was conducted and thereafter, the order dated 01.04.2024 (Annexure P/1) was passed. He would contend 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. Perusal of the order dated 01.04.2024 (Annexure P/1) would show that an 3 enquiry was conducted by a committee constituted by the respondent authorities and on its recommendation, the order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 54,73,770/- was passed by respondent No. 2 on 01.04.2024. 6. Perusal of the order would further show that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, even though the committee conducted the enquiry behind the back of the petitioner. 7. In the matter of Rakesh Kumar Pandey vs. Chhattisgarh Warehousing Corporation, WPS No. 4103 of 2021, it is held that the provisions of the Rules, 1966 would apply in the matter related to the services of the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation. For the sake of argument, if the Regulation, 1962 attracts, there is also a provision to conduct an enquiry before the imposition of any penalty. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, the order dated 01.04.2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby allowed. 9. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant