1 CGHC010158902023 2026:CGHC:30270 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2271 of 2023 Vikas Kumar Jaiswal Son Of Shri Bhuneshwar Dayal Jaiswal, Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village - Jilda, Tahsil - Pondi (Bachra), District - Korea Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh 3 - The Food Officer, District - Korea Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur, District - Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 16.07.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 27.03.2023 and 24.04.2023, whereby respondent No.4/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) directed recovery of a sum of Rs.2,35,381.1004 from the petitioner on account of the alleged shortage of food grains in YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.17 10:58:03 +0530 2 Government Fair Price Shop, Badesalhi, bearing I.D. No.532004050. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned orders dated 27.03.2023 & 24.04.2023 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as Panchayat Secretary and was earlier posted at Gram Panchayat Govindpur. According to the petitioner, the impugned recovery orders have been passed without conducting any proper enquiry, without furnishing the physical verification report, without recording any evidence and without affording an effective opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 as well as the principles of natural justice. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned recovery orders are wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is contended that no preliminary enquiry, as contemplated under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, was ever conducted before fastening the liability upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that although the impugned orders refer to an alleged physical verification and shortage of food grains, neither the physical verification report nor the Panchnama was ever supplied to the petitioner before passing of the recovery orders. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that no witnesses were examined, no statements of any relevant persons were recorded and no evidence whatsoever was collected in the presence of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner was condemned unheard and the recovery has been directed solely on the basis of an ex parte exercise. According to learned counsel, the entire proceedings suffer from gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure prescribed under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the matter deserves to be remitted to the competent authority for holding a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with law after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and supports the impugned orders. It is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which the petitioner has failed to avail. It is further submitted that during physical verification of the Fair Price Shop, shortage of food grains was detected and a Panchnama was prepared. Thereafter, show- cause notices were issued to the petitioner, to which replies were submitted but the same were found unsatisfactory by the competent authority. It is contended that sufficient opportunity of hearing had been granted to the petitioner and only thereafter the impugned recovery orders came to be passed. It is thus submitted that the competent authority has acted strictly in accordance with law and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings of the parties and the documents brought on record with utmost circumspection. 7. From a perusal of the order-sheet dated 15.06.2023, it transpires that while entertaining the writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had recorded a prima facie finding that the State was not in a position to demonstrate whether an effective opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner before passing of 5 the impugned recovery orders. The Coordinate Bench also took note of the specific contention of the petitioner that no preliminary enquiry had been conducted before fastening liability upon him. Being prima facie satisfied that the petitioner had made out a strong case for grant of interim protection, the Coordinate Bench admitted the writ petition and stayed the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned orders, which interim protection continued during the pendency of the present writ petition. 8. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon careful examination of the material available on record, it seems that although the respondents have sought to justify the recovery proceedings by placing reliance upon the alleged physical verification report, Panchnama and certain notices said to have been issued to the petitioner, the records do not satisfactorily demonstrate that a comprehensive enquiry, in conformity with the requirements of Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, was conducted before determining the petitioner's liability. 9. The principles of natural justice are not empty formalities. Whenever civil consequences ensue by way of recovery of public money or determination of liability against a public servant, the authority concerned is duty-bound to conduct a fair, transparent and meaningful enquiry by affording an adequate opportunity to the affected person. Such opportunity necessarily includes 6 disclosure of the material sought to be relied upon, permitting the delinquent to controvert the allegations, adducing evidence, examining relevant witnesses wherever necessary and thereafter recording reasoned findings based upon the evidence available on record. 10. In the present case, this Court finds that the competent authority has proceeded to fasten monetary liability upon the petitioner without undertaking a complete enquiry in the manner contemplated under the Control Order, 2016. The records also do not reveal that statements of the persons connected with the alleged shortage were recorded or that an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine or rebut the evidence relied upon against him. The impugned orders, therefore, do not inspire confidence as having been passed after a full-fledged enquiry satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness. 11. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is not required to enter into the disputed questions regarding the actual shortage of food grains or the petitioner's culpability. Those are essentially matters to be determined by the competent authority upon appreciation of evidence. However, when the decision-making process itself is found to be deficient and contrary to the prescribed procedure, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is justified in interfering with the impugned orders and relegating the parties to the competent authority for fresh adjudication. 7 12. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 27.03.2023 and 24.04.2023 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh for fresh consideration. The concerned Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall conduct a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Before passing any final order, the authority shall afford adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, permit him to produce all documents in his defence, record the statements of all relevant witnesses whose evidence is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law. 13. It is further directed that the petitioner shall obtain the certified copy of this order within one week from today and shall place the same before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Upon production of the certified copy, the competent authority shall proceed with the enquiry forthwith and shall make every endeavour to conclude the entire proceedings and pass a final order within a period of 30 days from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 14. It is made clear that no further notice shall be required to be issued to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) in pursuance of this order. However, the competent authority shall 8 issue appropriate notices to all necessary and affected parties, including the concerned Sarpanch, Secretary and any other person whose presence or evidence is considered necessary, so as to ensure that the enquiry is conducted in a fair, transparent and comprehensive manner within the aforesaid period. 15. The petitioner is also directed to extend full cooperation in the enquiry as contemplated under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. In the event the petitioner fails to cooperate or deliberately delays the proceedings, it shall be open to the competent authority to proceed further in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on the basis of the material available on record. 16. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and all questions of fact and law are left open to be adjudicated independently by the competent authority without being influenced by any observation contained in this order. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh