1 2025:CGHC:5358 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 514 of 2025 1 - Ramdev Patel S/o Bajhnath Patel Aged About 62 Years R/o Makan No. 596, Ward No. 10, Village- Post- Gauri, District- Rewa, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Head Office, Village- Jhanj, Sector- 24, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manager (Personnel/commercial/technical) Recovery Officer, State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office, Village Jhanj, Sector-24, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Trivikram Nayak, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs: Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:28 +0530 2 “10.1 This hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in calling the entire records pertaining to impugned order (Annexure P-1). 10.2 This hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in quashing and setting aside the impugned order (Annexure P-1). 10.3 This hon’ble court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner with consequential compound interest @ 18% per anum. 10.4 This hon’ble court may please be kind enough in granting consequential benefits, cost and any other relief to the petitioner.” 2. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has retired from the services on 30.6.2024, whereas the impugned order dated 29.1.2024 (Annexure P1) for recovery has been issued against him at the verge of his retirement, as such he has challenged the said order stating that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct while accepting the amount. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any mischief and he has not misappropriated any funds etc., however, there is loss of paddy due to several reasons due to which this recovery order has been passed against him. No departmental inquiry etc. was conducted and without there being any inquiry the recovery order has been passed. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the order dated 25.4.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.4103 of 2021 (Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. Chhattisgarh Warehousing Corporation and others) and has submitted that no inquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of recovery, as such the impugned order of recovery is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was an Assistant Manager in the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing 3 Corporation, Gharghoda and as such he was responsible for the deficit of the paddy. He is answerable, however, he has not explained as to how the paddy was found to be in less quantity. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially considering the fact that no inquiry has been conducted and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order of recovery has been passed that too just before his retirement, as such the impugned order of recovery is not in accordance with law and is, therefore, the impugned order is quashed. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh