2025:JHHC:12947 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 1696 of 2017 ---- 1. Rajendra Lohra, son of Shri Lakhi Charan Lohra; 2. Sudhir Mahto, son of Shri Yogeshwar Mahto; 3. Alok Kumar Nirala, son of Shri Dasrath Prasad Yadav; 4. Arvind Kumar Tiwari, son of late Nand Kumar Tiwari; 5. Chandra Mohan Lohra, son of Shri Rissa Lohra; 6. Mukesh Kumar, son of Shyam Sunder Singh; 7. Rajendra Kumar Mishra, son of Ram Chandra Mishra; All are residing in the campus of JAP-II (Jharkhand Armed Police Force-II), Tatisilvey, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilvey, District-Ranchi. ..........Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP)-II, Tatisilvey, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilvey, District-Ranchi. 5. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Accounts, Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP)-II, Tatisilvey, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilvey, District-Ranchi. .........Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, AC to SC(M)-III ---- 17/30.04.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioners praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order issued under memo No. 595/ General Section, dated 04.03.2017 (Annexure-2), whereby the 4th Respondent has directed for recovery of the alleged excess payment of 10% on account of House Rent paid to the Officers/ Employees of the Jharkhand Armed Police for the period from 01.09.2008 to 31.01.2017 from their salary @ Rs.2000/- per month from the Employees/ Officers whose service is lesser than 5 years and @ Rs.1000/- per month whose service is more than 5 years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of recovery has made without issuance of any show-cause and without giving opportunity of hearing. He further draws attention 2025:JHHC:12947 2 of this Court towards Annexure-2 of the writ petition and submits that pursuant to this Annexure their amount has been deducted however, no opportunity of hearing was given to them before starting the deduction of the alleged amount. 3. Learned counsel further referred the last paragraph of Annexure-2 wherein it is mentioned that under what circumstances after implementation of the 6th PRC from 01.09.2008 instead of 10%, 20% was paid to the Petitioners which is a matter of investigation and for that Enquiry Committee has been constituted. For brevity, relevant portion is quoted hereinbelow: “किन परिस्थिकिय ों में छठे वेिनमान िे लागु ह ने पि किनाोंि 01.09.2008 िे प्रभाव से 10% िी बजाय 20% मिान कििाया भत्ता किया गया, ज जॉच एवों अग्रिि िािरवाई हेिु पुकलस उपाधीक्षि (लेखा) सुब ध िु माि जायसवाल िे नेिृत्व में जॉच सकमकि िायारलय आिेश ज्ञापाोंि 34/ग ० किनाोंि 07.02.2017 िे द्वािा गकठि िि िी गयी है।“ However, till date, no any Enquiry Report has been produced by the Respondents. 4. From record it appears that there is a specific averment made in paras- 13 of the writ application that the Petitioners have not been provided any opportunity of being heard before issuance of the impugned order and in para-14 they have also stated that they have never misrepresented for taking such House Rent Allowance. Though a counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherein at para-20, the Respondents have stated that the said statements are matter of records and no comments was offered by them. Even during course of hearing, the Respondents have not rebutted those two categorical statements made in the writ application. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-2 does not have any legs to stand in the eyes of law for the reason of non- complying the principles of natural justice and the settled proposition of law that any action which is having civil consequences; principles of natural justice must be followed. 2025:JHHC:12947 3 6. As a result, the impugned order dated 04.03.2017 (Annexure- 2), is hereby, quashed and set aside. However, the Respondent- Department would be at liberty to proceed in the matter, if so advised, in accordance with law and applicable Rules and Regulations by complying the principles of natural justice. However, if they chooses to proceed, then the fresh order must be passed within a period of 16 weeks from today; failing which the entire deducted amount shall be refunded to the respective Petitioners with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery till actual payment. 7. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed in the manner indicated herein above. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal