1 2025:CGHC:55705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1886 of 2023 1 - Manthir Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Derharam Sahu Aged About 75 Years Retired Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Vivekanand, Girdhari-Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pradhan Mahmalekhakar (Lkha And Haqdri) Zeo Point Baloda-Bazar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer, Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 14/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1 That, reminder dated 24-01-2023 annexure P-1 addressed to BEO Durg to recover Rs. 67,357.00 with interested @ 25% from petitioner may kindly be quashed. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 That, cost of litigation and any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly also be awarded.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the present petition arises out of an order issued by respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 4, directing the recovery of an amount of Rs. 67,357, along with 25% interest, from the petitioner. This demand for recovery is made without any prior inquiry or opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The impugned letter Annexure P-1 was issued by the concerned authorities despite the fact that the petitioner has not been at fault in any manner. The petitioner retired from his position on 30 th June 2011, and the demand for recovery was made long after his retirement. However, no proper inquiry was conducted, nor was any opportunity granted to the petitioner to defend himself before this recovery order was issued. The petitioner contends that the recovery demand, issued without following the due process of law, is therefore void and unlawful. Before the issuance of Annexure P-1, an unsigned reminder letter dated 23rd November 2022 was sent by respondent no. 1, which was also a part of the series of actions leading to the demand for recovery. In response to this demand, the petitioner’s counsel sent a formal reply on 16th January 2023, arguing that the recovery was made in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, was illegal. In view of these facts, the petitioner seeks to challenge the recovery order made against him, asserting that the demand for recovery is unjust, illegal, and made without following the due process or principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned action of the respondents in demanding recovery of Rs. 67,357 from the petitioner, as outlined in Annexure P-1, is wholly impermissible under the law and should be set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafik Masih (White Washer) and others, has clearly held in para 3 that no 3 recovery can be made from an employee without first providing them an opportunity of hearing and without adequately showing the reasons and the part played by the employee in the alleged financial discrepancies. It is submitted that, in the present case, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to present his side of the matter before the recovery order was made. The respondents have failed to follow this fundamental principle of natural justice. Therefore, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the demand for recovery from the petitioner is not legally sustainable. Further, Annexure P-1 establishes that the recovery order was issued long after the petitioner’s retirement on 30th June 2011. This delay in issuing the recovery order is impermissible in law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision. Recovery can only be made within a reasonable period, and the demand for recovery issued post-retirement violates the established principles of law, making the order illegal and unjustifiable. Additionally, Annexure P-2, the reminder letter, further substantiates that there are no allegations of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The absence of any fraudulent action or intentional wrongdoing on the part of the petitioner renders the recovery demand even more unjustifiable. In the absence of such allegations, no recovery order can be issued as a matter of right. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner seeks that the impugned recovery orders be quashed and the matter be decided in his favor in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the present petition is devoid of merit and substance and therefore deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any legal right for which a writ may be issued by this Court. The grievance of petitioner’primarily concerns the order dated 24/01/2023 (Annexure-P-1) issued by the Office of the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, and seeks no relief against the answering respondents/State. 4 The respondents/State have been erroneously arrayed as parties in this petition without any cause of action against them, as no specific relief is sought from the State. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 would submit that the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking to quash the reminder letter regarding the Minus Balance of Rs. 67,357/- issued on 24.01.2023. Respondent No. 2, as the Accounts Officer for the State, is responsible for maintaining the General Provident Fund (GPF) accounts of State Government employees, based on the schedules and vouchers received from the respective Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs). The petitioner, who retired on 30.06.2011, was informed of a negative balance in his GPF account due to discrepancies in the maintenance of his GPF passbook by the department. Specifically, several withdrawals were not posted in the GPF passbook, leading to an overstated closing balance. Despite the petitioner being notified in March 2012 about the Minus Balance, neither the petitioner nor the department raised any objections regarding the final payment computation sheet. As a result, the negative balance of Rs. 67,357/- was calculated and communicated. The responsibility for these discrepancies lies with the department, which improperly sanctioned withdrawals in excess of the deposited amounts. Consequently, the negative balance is recoverable from the petitioner, with penal interest, as per the rules governing GPF accounts. It is further submitted that the Office of the Principal Accountant General has acted in compliance with applicable rules and regulations. Any further representations or clarifications will be duly considered and addressed. Therefore, it is prayed that Respondent No. 2 be exempted from this case as all actions were taken in accordance with the relevant rules and the petitioner has failed to establish any merit in his claim. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 5 7. On careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the recovery order issued against the petitioner was not in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafik Masih (White Washer) has held that before any recovery is made from a Government employee, they must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case and defend themselves. In the present case, the petitioner was not provided with any opportunity of hearing before the recovery order was issued. 8. Moreover, there is no indication in the records that the petitioner played any part in the alleged discrepancies or fraud. The respondents have not shown any misconduct or misrepresentation by the petitioner that could justify such a recovery order. Furthermore, the recovery order was issued long after the petitioner’s retirement in 2011. As per the principles of law, such recovery orders should be made within a reasonable period, and the unexplained delay of more than a decade in this case further renders the recovery unjustifiable. No evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner has been presented, which makes the recovery demand even more arbitrary. 9. In view of the above, it is clear that the issuance of the recovery order was contrary to the principles of natural justice and was made without following the due process of law. The recovery order is, therefore, quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be relieved of the unjust demand for recovery. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The reminder letter dated 24th January 2023 (Annexure P-1), as well as any subsequent recovery proceedings, are hereby quashed. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE