1 2025:CGHC:46628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 531 of 2022 Liladhar Yadav S/o Bhagat Ram Yadav Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-2, District Office, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar Pussour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 24.09.2021 (Annexure P-2) and further directed the respondent authorities not to initiate any recovery proceedings. 2 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Mr. Rao would submit that the petitioner was initially posted to the post of Assistant Grade-III at Pussour from 2010 to 19.12.2013 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II on 15.05.2014, now posted in the Office of Collector, Raipur. It is submitted that a show cause notice dated 08.02.2021 was issued against the petitioner to the effect that he committed irregularities in payment of Rs.4,43,200/- through cheque dated 26.08.2013. The petitioner filed reply to the said notice on 09.02.2021 and took a plea that charge was already handed over to one Jaikaran Patel. He would submit that no enquiry was conducted and the Collector, Raigarh, passed an order directing recovery of Rs.69,500/- and Rs.4,43,200/-, on 24.12.2021. In both the orders, the dates of issuance of cheques are wrongly mentioned as 26.08.2021 instead of 26.08.2013. He would submit that the matter pertains to the year 2013, and after nine years, fastening liability without any departmental enquiry is arbitrary and illegal. He would further contend that penalty of recovery amounts to a minor penalty and could not be imposed without affording an opportunity of hearing & without holding enquiry. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by Tehsildar Pussour, on 08.02.2021, further, a notice was issued by the Collector on 24.12.2021 and thereafter, order was passed by the Additional Collector on 24.12.2021. He would contend that the petitioner misappropriated salary payable to the Supervisors, therefore, order of recovery was passed by the Additional Collector. He would submit that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. Heard. 5. Perusal of the documents would show that the Collector, vide order dated 24.09.2021, and the Additional Collector, vide order dated 24.12.2021, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.69,500/- (sixty-nine thousand five hundred) and Rs.4,43,200/- (four lakh forty- three thousand two hundred). 6. The allegations have been made with regard to the irregularities, but no material has been discussed in the orders impugned as to what kind of irregularities were committed by the petitioner. 7. Bare reading of Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, CCA Rules, 1996), it would be evident that order of recovery is minor penalty and such penalty cannot be inflicted without holding enquiry according to the provisions of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. 8. In the present case, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and no departmental enquiry was conducted, even article of charge was not issued, therefore, orders dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) & 24.09.2021 (Annexure P/2), are not sustainable. Accordingly, both the orders are hereby quashed. 9. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate an equiry strictly in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim