1 2025:CGHC:59951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3124 of 2025 1 - Ashok Kumar Mishra S/o Rameshwar Prasad Mishra Aged About 63 Years Occupation Accountant Retired From State Warehousing Corporation Branch Bijapur And Thankhamhariya, District Balouda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Secretary, Head Office Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office Sector-4, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Karmik Prabandhak Chhattisgarh Ware Housing Corporation Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: NIRMALA RAO 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be quashed impugned order dated 28.3.2025 (Annexure P/1) as well as the impugned show cause notice dated 5.2.2025 (Annexure – P/2) and pass the appropriate order in favour of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to provide the petitioners all his pending retiral dues, at the earliest, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice alongwith cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was holding the post of Accountant got retired from services on 31.3.2025. He would submit that the order of recovery dated 28.3.2025 to the tune of Rs.5,42,771/- was issued by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. He would submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded and no enquiry was conducted as contemplated in the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘CCA Rules, 1966) and the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation and Staff Regulations 1962 (for short ‘Regulations, 1962’), therefore, the order is bad in law. He would contend that the order was passed just before the retirement, therefore, the order is not sustainable. He would also contend that the respondent authorities failed to provide the relevant documents. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner was posted at various places as Branch Manager 3 and he was supposed to maintain loss and gain sheets but he failed to do so and thereby caused financial loss to the corporation. He would submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided before taking final decision. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5.2.2025 and an opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner on 27.3.2025. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. As stated in Annexure-R/3 dated 5.2.2025, the services of the petitioner were governed by the CCA Rules, 1966 and Regulations, 1962. It is further stated in the said order that according to the provisions of CCA Rules, 1966 and Regulations, 1962, no punishment other than that specified in Sub-Regulation (1)(a), (1)(b) and (1)(c) shall be imposed on any employee without formal charges being framed against him and without giving him an opportunity for tendering an explanation in writing and without affording him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, if any, and to produce his defence. ‘The penalties specified in Regulations 22 are 1(a) Fine, 1(b) Censure and 1(c) stoppage of increment or promotion. Regulation 22 (1)(e) deals with recovery from pay of the whole or part of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by the employee.’ 6. The order Annexure-P/1 has been passed according to the provisions of Regulations 22(1)(e) and therefore, the respondents were under an obligation to frame formal charges and thereafter, provide an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation. The 4 respondents ought to have granted opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce his defence. In the present case, the provisions contained in CCA Rules, 1966 and Regulations, 1962 have not been complied with while passing an order Annexure-P/1 dated 28.3.2025. Therefore, the order dated 28.3.2025 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate proceedings, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi