2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 3578 of 2022 Dhan Singh Patel S/o Late Shri Agrasen Patel Aged About 63 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Chantidih, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Public Service Commission, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare And Development Department, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 3/State : Shri Shubham Bajpai, P.L . For Respondent No.2 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 07/10/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief : 10.1 That the Respondents may be directed to produce the records and documents for the bare perusal of the Hon'ble Court relating to the services of the petitioner. 10.2 That Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondents to set aside and quash the impugned order for recovery dated 31.02.2022 and not to recover any amount pursuant to order dated 31.02.2022 from the retiral dues.; 10.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. . ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.15 11:06:25 +0530 -2- 2. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare and Scheduled Caste Department, Raipur (CG). In the year 2006-2007, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare and Scheduled Caste Department, Ambikapur ( Sarguja). During his tenure at Ambikapur for fulfilling the requirements in the hostels under the department order for supply of mattress and pillows for the students was placed and after following the process and the provisions of Chhattisgarh Bhandar Kray Adhiniyam, 2002 and after approval of purchase committee supply order was issued as petitioner being member secretary of the purchase committee shortlisted and some irregularities were pointed out by the respondent authorities. The petitioner initially was charged for irregularities in payment of supplies of material for hostel, then he alone faces departmental enquiry and he was punished with major penalty for stoppage of four pay increments. The order of disciplinary authority was challenged in appeal and the affirming order passed by the State Government was challenged in a writ petition before the Hon'ble Court, which is still pending for adjudication. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2020 and he was paid provisional pension only for which he again preferred a writ petition and the Hon'ble Court was kind enough to pass the directions for releasing the amount of retrial dues of the petitioner. But the respondent authorities have still not complied with the orders of the Hon'ble Court even after the notices are issued to the respondents on the subsequent contempt petition preferred by the petitioner. The recovery order is suddenly passed by the respondent even after the department enquiry closed after the lapse of more than 06 years. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 31/01/2022 by which an amount of Rs.03,02,924/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order was passed in compliance of the order dated 26/03/2013 in a Departmental Inquiry conducted against the petitioner (Annexure P/2) by that order, the petitioner was imposed penality of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect. It has also been observed that for the loss caused to the State by the action of the petitioner, a separate order of recovery would -3- be passed. Therefore, the impugned order was passed. He further submit that the order dated 26/03/2013 was subject to challenge in a Departmental Appeal by the petitioner which also stood dismissed vide order date 29/07/2015 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition bearing in WP (S) No. 4443/2015 challenging both the above stated order. This Court vide order dated 24/07/2024 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 26/03/2013 and 29/07/2015. Therefore he submits that the basis of order dated 26/03/2013 upon which the impugned order Annexure P/1 was issued, no longer exists and therefore, the impugned order cannot be executed against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Per contra learned State counsel submits that by the action/inaction of the petitioner, the State exchequer suffered loss, therefore a Departmental Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner against the petitioner in which the above stated orders were passed and in compliance of that those, the loss which has been caused by the petitioner to the state and the said loss has been directed to be recovered by the impugned order. However he could not dispute to the fact that against the order of punishment and appellate order, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and those orders were set aside. He further submits that action of the petitioner caused loss to the State exchequer, therefore, the impugned order may not be interfered by this Court and the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The order dated 29/07/2015 (Annexure P/1) is impugned in this writ petition. Recital of the order indicates that a Departmental Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which the order dated 26/03/2013 was passed imposing certain punishment and also observing that a separate order for recovery of loss cause to the State exchequer would be passed. It appears that in compliance of that order, this impugned order was passed. There is no dispute to the fact that against the order of punishment an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed and both the -4- orders were subject to challenge before this court in WPS No. 4443/2015 and this Court vide its order dated 24/07/2024 has allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders of punishment and the appeal. As the source by which the impugned order Annexure P/1 was issued, no longer exist and has been set aside by this Court, naturally the consequence would be of quashment of the order impugned. Therefore, Annexure P/1 is hereby quashed. 7. Petition thus allowed as indicated above. If any recovery has been made from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish