1 2026:CGHC:22999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1480 of 2025 1 - Ram Bhau Nayak (R.B. Nayak) S/o Late Shri J.R. Nayak Aged About 68 Years Retired Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Naraatola, Block Dondi, Tah. Dondi, Distt. Balod R/o Quatrer No. 310/b/ina Pandar Dalli, Dallirajhara, Post Dallirajhara, Tah. Dondi, District Balod C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Divisional Joint Director (Kosh Lekha And Pension) Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3 - Block Education Officer Dondi, District Balod Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner, a retired Head Master of the Middle School, is challenging the impugned recovery order dated 12.03.2019, whereby an amount of Rs. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.05.15 18:34:51 +0530 2 1,51,727/- has been recovered from him through challan. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired Head Master. After the retirement, respondents authorities has issued the impugned recovery order dated 12/03/2019 to the petitioner, for a recovery of Rs.1,51,727/- on the head of excess payment. Learned counsel submits that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said recovery order, the petitioner has deposited Rs.1,51,727/- through challan, which is marked as Annexure P-3. Learned counsel further submits that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order of recovery is bad in law and the same is against the principle of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner who is a Class-II employee, has voluntarily deposited the amount of Rs.1,51,727/- through challan pursuant to the recovery order and has not raised any objection at the time of deposit. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the recovery after having complied with the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the pleadings made by the petitioner. 5. In the case at hand, from perusal of the record, it reflects that the recovery of Rs.1,51,727/- has been made on account of alleged excess payment made to the petitioner. However, 3 without giving any opportunity of hearing, the respondents has issued the said recovery order and recovered an amount of Rs.1,51,727/- from the petitioner through challan. Thus, the recovery made without affording any opportunity of hearing is contrary to law and violative of the principles of natural justice. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2009 (14) SCC 690 held thus:- “15. the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized states is of supreme importance or when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining dispute between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequence must be consisted with the rules of natural justice.” 7. It is the well settled proposition of law that no orders causing civil consequences can be passed, without observing rules of natural justice. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an individual suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. It is also trite laws that if any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil principles of natural 4 justice. 8. It is an admitted fact that before issuing the impugned recovery order against the petitioner, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the entire action has been taken behind the back of the petitioner which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. For the reasons mentioned herein above, and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts fo the present case, the order impugned deserves to be and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. 10. However, the respondents would be at liberty to take action against the petitioner with regard to the excess amount so paid to him, if they so desire, after observing the principles of natural justice and affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep