1 2026:CGHC:21322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6163 of 2021 Smt. Pritee Awasthy (Sharma) W/o Shri Santosh Sharma Aged About 34 Years Working As A Seed Production Assistant (Spa) Posted At Seed Processing Center, Dharampura, Mungeli, Tehsil Revenue And Civil Dist. Mungeli (Chhattisgarh). --- Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil And District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chairman Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha, Raipur 492006, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha, Raipur 492006, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy General Manager (Establishment) Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha, Raipur 492006, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy General Manager (Rco) Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha, Raipur 492006, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Seeds Manager, O/o Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Limited, Seed Processing Center, Sendari, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Shri K.N. Sahu, Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Immediate Seeds Processing Incharge Of Seeds Processing Center, Dharmapura, District Mungeli, At Present Posted At Seeds Processing Center, Jora, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 6301 of 2021 K.N. Sahu S/o Late Shri J.R. Sahu, Aged About 63 Years Retired Senior Agriculture Development Officer Resident Of A/35, Dream City, Khamtari - Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Managing Director, C.G. Rajya Beej Evem Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited. Beej Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chairman C.G. Rajya Beej Evem Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited. Beej Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For respective Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. T. L. Bareth, Panel Lawyer For CG Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07.05.2026 3 1) In WPS No.6163/2021, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 Call for entire records pertaining to the issuance of the impugned orders. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned recovery orders and enquiry report containing in Annexure P/1, Annexure P/2, and Annexure P/3. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to refund the deducted salary which was deducted in compliance of order dated 02.06.2021 and 08.09.2021 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. 10.4 Any appropriate writ direction or order may also be granted in favor of the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 10.5 Cost of the petition is also awarded to the petitioner.” 2) In WPS No.6301/2021, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 4 quash the order dated 02.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 08.09.2021 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent no. 2 & 3. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay all the retiral dues and emoluments of the petitioner without and deduction, with interest @ 18% per annum. 10.4 Any other relief, which Hon'ble court deems fit and proper of the case, may be allowed. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 3) Learned counsel appearing in WPS No.6163 of 2021 would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Seed Processing Assistant and was posted at Seed Processing Centre, Dharampura, District Mungeli on 01.09.2014. At the relevant time, respondent No.7 was the immediate in-charge of the said Seed Processing Centre and was working there on deputation during the financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14. He would further submit that during his tenure, advance amounts were paid to registered farmers namely Satya Prakash Singh for sampling of Soyabean seeds and Kunj Bihari Dahariya for Gram (Chana) seeds, which were sent to the Seed Certification Centre, Raipur for testing. Upon testing, the seeds of both the farmers were declared non-standard and failed. He would also submit that on 14.08.2015, respondent No.7 handed over charge to the petitioner; however, no 5 report regarding failure of the aforesaid seeds or return of non- standard seeds to the concerned farmers was ever handed over to the petitioner. He would contend that respondent No.7 did not prepare any written note-sheet or record regarding recovery of the advance amount paid to the aforesaid farmers. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WPS No.6301/2021 would submit that the petitioner retired on 31.08.2021 from the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer. He would further submit that during his entire service tenure, the petitioner discharged his duties diligently without any allegation but respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have illegally imposed a recovery of Rs. 3,96,535/- upon the petitioner alleging that during the period 2012-2014, the seeds obtained from harvesters were found to be sub-standard. He would also submit that the payments to the harvesters were made strictly under the written directions issued by respondent No.2, and the relevant memo dated 23.03.2012 along with payment voucher dated 13.04.2012 have been filed as Annexure P-4. He would contend that respondent No.2 further issued a memo dated 02.11.2013 directing payment of advance amount for purchase and processing of seeds at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per quintal, pursuant to which the petitioner, being the Processing In-charge of Seed Processing Centre, Mungeli, made the payments accordingly. The said 6 memo and receipt entry have been filed collectively as Annexure P-5; thus, the impugned recovery imposed upon the petitioner is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 5) It is jointly submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners are governed by the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1966”) but the respondent authorities without conducting enquiry passed order of recoveries against the petitioners in contravention with the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966, therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondent authorities are unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserve to be quashed. They have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Siemens Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 Lawsuit (SC) 1110 and the matter of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India, reported in 1996 Lawsuit (SC) 1567. 6) On the other hand, Mr. Tiwari learned counsels appearing for the respondents C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikash Nigam Limited would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submit that the petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing. He would further submit that a show-cause notice were issued 7 before inflicting penalty, and proper replies were filed. He would contend that as orders of recovery, which is a minor penalty has been inflicted, therefore, there was no need to conduct a full-fledged departmental inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. He would further contend that the petitions are misconceived and deserve to be dismissed. 7) Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contentions made by Mr. Tiwari. 8) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9) Orders of recovery are issued against the petitioners are minor penalty according to provision of Rule 10 of the Rules, 1966. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 deals with the ‘procedure for imposing minor penalties and same reads as under : “16.Procedure for imposing minor penalties- (1)Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall be made except after- (a)informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b)holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub- rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry 8 is necessary; (c)taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d)recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (e)consulting the commission where such consultation is necessary [(1-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government Servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay of Stagnation Allowance and such withholding or increments of pay or Stagnation Allowance is likely to effect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance for a period exceeding three years of to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.] (2)The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include- (i)a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii)a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii)his representation, if any; (iv)the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v)the advice of the commission, if /any; (vi)the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and 9 (vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.” A bare reading of above-quoted provision would make it clear that the authority concerned is required to conduct an inquiry according to the provisions of Sub-rule 3 to 23 of the Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966, while imposing minor penalty. 10) In the present case, after receiving a complaint, an inquiry was conducted, wherein, allegations were found proved. Show-cause notices were replied but the petitioners denied the allegations made therein and subsequently, order of recovery were passed. 11) In the matter of M/s. Siemens Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. Relevant para 10 is reproduced herein below : “10. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 943, Special Director and Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCALE 262], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz, when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an 10 event, even if the courts directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose [See K.I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India and Others (1987) 4 SCC 431 : AIR 1988 SC 686]. It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause.” 12) In the present case, a show-cause notice were issued to the petitioners, wherein, the amount of recovery was pre-determined by the authority concerned and therefore, writ petitions are maintainable and orders passed by the respondent authorities are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 13) In the matter of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the charges are levelled against a Government servant and charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. Further, in the present case, respondent authorities failed to comply with the provision of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 as no inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 was conducted. Relevant para 3 is reproduced herein below : “3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges 11 against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.” 14) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, impugned orders are hereby quashed. 15) If any amount recovered from the petitioners, same shall be returned forthwith. 16) Respondent authorities would be at liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with the Rules 14 & 16 of the Rules of 1966, if so advised. 17) Accordingly, the petitions are hereby allowed. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE NADIM