1 2026:CGHC:23684 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2258 of 2023 Reserved on 1 3 .4.2026 Pronounced on 15.06.2026 Dhanraj Singh Son Of Late Kauleshwar Singh, Aged About 55 Years, at Present posted and working as Assistant Grade - III, Government College, Mohla, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Resident Of Depopara, Village, Post And Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Directorate of Higher Education, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal, Government College, Mohla, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal, Government Lal Shyam Shah College, Manpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.06.15 18:49:09 +0530 2 (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akansha Verma, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned recovery order dated 21.1.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.4, seeking to recover a sum of Rs.4,40,193.60/-. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 21-01-2022 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was originally posted as a Book Lifter at Government Lal Shyam Shah College, Manpur, District Rajnandgaon. Subsequently, after his promotion as Assistant Grade-III, he was transferred to Government Naveen College, Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (CG). At the time of relieving from his former post, a ‘No Dues Certificate’ was issued, and no objections were raised regarding his conduct or accounts. However, it is alleged that the petitioner did not properly hand over the charge of library’s inventory. On subsequent physical 3 verification, a total of 2651 books were found missing. Since the Book Lifter is responsible for the Library, the petitioner was required to account for the deficiency, however, he did not provide any satisfactory explanation. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 21.1.2022, a recovery of Rs.4,40,193.60 was directed against him. To facilitate this, the Principal of Government Naveen College, Mohla (the petitioner’s current place of posting) was directed to recover the subject amount in monthly installments of Rs.7336.56 over a period of 5 years (60 months). It is further contended that the petitioner did not hand over the physical inventory and the corresponding records for books and stationary designated for Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe welfare. Hence, it has been ordered that if any further embezzlement is found or shortage is detected upon completion of the verification process, a separate recovery order shall be issued against the petitioner for the additional amount. Hence, this Petition. 4. Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier appointed as Book Lifter in the Government Lal Shyam Shah College, Manpur. Subsequent to his promotion, pursuant to the order dated 28.5.2021, the petitioner joined his promoted post of Assistant Grade-III at Government Naveen College, Mohla. On 4.6.2021, a No Dues Certificate was issued to the petitioner by Government Lal Shyam Shah College, Manpur. Thereafter, he joined his duties at Government Naveen College, Mohla. He submits that during his service tenure at the 4 former College nor at the time of his transfer was any physical verification of the library inventory conducted. After issuance of the No Dues Certificate and the lapse of several months, the impugned order dated 21.1.2022 was passed. This order was issued behind the back of the petitioner, without serving any show cause notice or providing him a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as a result violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was relieved from Government Lal Shyam Shah College, Manpur on 4.6.2021 by Respondent No.4. At that time, no objection was raised regarding any shortage of books in the library nor was any liability attributed to the petitioner. Furthermore, it is submitted that on 1.12.2021, the charge of the library books was handed over to one Manoj Kumar Thakur, Assistant Professor (Geology Department). During this subsequent handing-over process also, no discrepancy or missing of books were reported. He also submits that after transfer of the petitioner, his LPC was not forwarded to his new place of posting. When the petitioner moved an application requesting the dispatch of his LPC, the Principal of the Government Lal Shyam Shah College, Manpur, refused the request stating that the LPC could not be issued on the ground that there is a shortage of 2651 library books valued at Rs.4,40,193.60. The respondent No.4- Principal further stated that until the said recovery is made, the petitioner cannot be granted his LPC. He submits that the action of respondent No.4-Principal is contradictory. At the first instance, 5 when the petitioner was relieved, he was issued a No Dues Certificate without any mention of inventory shortages or financial liability. However, the respondents are now attempting to retrospectively withhold his LPC based on allegations that were never raised during his tenure or at the time of his relieving. Subsequently, the aforesaid objections were raised behind the back of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that if books were indeed missing, the Department should have informed him at the first instance by issuing a show cause notice, which was not done. More so, the Petitioner was only a Book Lifter; the Incharge of the Library, the Librarian and other library staff bear equal responsibility for the preservation of books. However, the Department has passed the recovery order only against the petitioner, which is per se illegal and discriminatory. He also submits that before passing of a recovery order, a notice ought to be issued to the petitioner to provide an opportunity to clarify his position and explain the alleged shortage of books. He submits that in the present case, no such opportunity was granted, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, no penalty either in the form of reduction in rank, stoppage of increments or recovery of dues can be imposed without granting the employee a due opportunity of hearing. The concerned respondents neither issued a Charge Memo nor conducted a Departmental Enquiry; instead they directly issued an order for the recovery of the amount. He lastly submits that since a show cause 6 notice was not issued to the petitioner to allow the petitioner to present his defence, this omission violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; as such, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 5. Per contra, Ms. Akansha Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Book Lifter in 1990. Due to staff shortages, the petitioner was handed over the full charge of library, which he duly accepted without any protest. She submits that the No Dues Certificate was inadvertently issued. The petitioner took undue advantage of his sole charge over the library and without a proper physical verification of the inventory, submitted a report to the effect that there is no shortage or missing of books, based upon which, a No Dues Certificate was issued. She also submits that repeated notices were issued to the petitioner, however, neither did he submit the list of books nor handed over the charge to his successor upon his promotion and transfer to Government Naveen College, Mohla. An Enquiry Committee was constituted on 23.9.2021. The Committee recorded statements of staff confirming that the petitioner did not provide a list of books of any kind. Thereafter, upon physical verification, shortage of books was detected. Out of the recorded stock, the Committee identified a deficiency in books valued at Rs. 4,40,193.60. She further submits that the petitioner participated in the process and consented to the recovery at the rate of 1.5 times the value of the missing books. She further submits that since the 7 recovery is based on a factual enquiry, where the petitioner had the opportunity to account for the books and failed to do so, a further hearing would be a futile exercise. The recovery is a direct consequence of the petitioner’s negligence, as he did not maintain the property entrusted to him. Learned counsel for the State lastly submits that the impugned recovery order is legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Book Lifter at Government Lal Shyam Shah College, Manpur District Rajnandgaon. Upon his promotion to Assistant Grade-III, he was transferred to Government Naveen College, Mohla District Rajnandgaon. At the time of his relieving, the petitioner obtained a No Dues Certificate from the concerned authorities. This Certificate was not denied but was duly granted, suggesting that the Respondents had no objection regarding the petitioner’s conduct or accountabilities at the time of his departure. Had the petitioner been involved in the loss or misappropriation of library books, a ‘No Dues Certificate’ would not have been issued. 8. It is trite law that any order entail civil consequences must be preceded by an enquiry. The delinquent employee must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before issuance of any order that adversely affects his rights or property. 8 9. In the present matter, the concerned Respondents neither issued any show cause notice nor conducted any enquiry whatsoever. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180, has deprecated the practice of passing such orders without providing the concerned parties an opportunity to be heard. 10. In a judgment rendered in the matter of Uma Nath Pandey and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40, the following was held in para 10 : 3(10). The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the ‘Magna Carta’. The classic exposition of Sir 9 Edward Coke of natural justice requires to ‘vocate, interrogate and adjudicate’. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [(1863) 143 ER 414] the principle was thus stated : (ER p. 420) ‘[E]ven God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. “Adam” (says God), “where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?”.’ 11. Furthermore, in a judgment rendered in the matter of State Bank of India and others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1, the following was held in para 36, 37 & 38 : 36. We need to bear in mind that the principles of natural justice are not mere legal formalities. They constitute substantive obligations that need to be followed by decision-making and adjudicating authorities. The principles of natural justice act as a guarantee against arbitrary action, both in terms of procedure and substance, by judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities. Two fundamental principles of natural justice are entrenched in Indian jurisprudence : (i) nemo judex in causa sua, which means that no person should be a Judge in their own cause; and (ii) audi alteram partem, which means that a person affected by administrative, judicial or quasi- judicial action must be heard before a decision is taken. The courts generally favour interpretation of a statutory provision consistent with the principles of natural justice because it is presumed that the statutory authorities do not intend to contravene fundamental rights. Application of the said principles depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, express language and basic scheme of the statute under which the administrative power is exercised, the nature and purpose for which the power is conferred, 10 and the final effect of the exercise of that power. [Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, (1970) 2 SCC 458] 37. While the borrowers argue that the actions of banks in classifying borrower accounts as fraud according to the procedure laid down under the Master Directions on Frauds is in violation of the principles of natural justice, RBI and lender banks argue that these principles cannot be applied at the stage of reporting a criminal offence to investigating agencies. At the outset, we clarify that principles of natural justice are not applicable at the stage of reporting a criminal offence, which is a consistent position of law adopted by this Court. 38. In Union of India v. W.N. Chadha [Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 1171] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that that providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused in every criminal case before taking any action against them would “frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and make the provisions of law relating to the investigation lifeless, absurd, and self-defeating” [Id, SCC p. 293, para 98.] . Again, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. [Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 503] has reiterated that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not provide for right of hearing before the registration of an FIR. 12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities ought to have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner at the first instance. Thereafter, any reply submitted by the petitioner to the said notice must be considered with due diligence. Furthermore, if any adverse order is 11 contemplated against the petitioner, he must be afforded an opportunity of hearing. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.1.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the concerned authorities deserves to be and is hereby set-aside, as it suffers from manifest error of law. However, the concerned authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate orders afresh, after following the due process of law. This entails issuing a notice to the Petitioner, obtaining his reply and conducting an enquiry. Thereafter, if it is established that the petitioner is liable for the recovery of the subject amount, the concerned authorities may pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay