1 2026:CGHC:5305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4003 of 2019 Virendra Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Gambhir Ram Thakur Aged About 40 Years Working As Constable (Driver) No. 370, At Office Of Sub Divisional Officer Police, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. G.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 30.01.2026 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 26.06.2015, passed by the respondent No.03, whereby as amount of Rs.1,05,103/- has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before initiating the recovery proceedings, no adjudication of amount to be recovered has been made by the respondent-department and straight away Rs.1,05,103/- has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner, SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 which is illegal, bad and arbitrary. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order of recovery and prays for dismissal of this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rivals submissions made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, since before initiating the recovery proceedings, no adjudication has been made with regard to the amount which is to be recoverable from the petitioner, the recovery of Rs.1,05,103/- from the salary of the petitioner is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law regard to the amount recoverable from the petitioner, if any. Further, the petitioner is also at liberty to prefer representation alongwith copy of this order and supportive documents before the concerned respondents authority for refund of the said amount recovered from his salary within 04 weeks’ from today and, in turn, the concerned respondents are directed to consider and decide petitioner’s said representation in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order preferably within 06 weeks from the date of receipt of said representation. 6. With aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stand finally disposed of. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if