1 / 5 CGHC010274862026 2026:CGHC:30595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5473 of 2026 Tarun Kumar Dewangan S/o Narayan Prasad Dewangan Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Upper Division Teacher At Govt. Middle School, Saddu, Block Dharsiwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Deputy Director, Chhattisgarh State Audit Department, Block- 1, Second Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. Joint Director, Fund Account And Pension, Raipur Division Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5. District Treasury Officer, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6. District Education Officer, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 7. Block Education Officer, Dharsiwa District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, P.L. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.21 10:53:05 +0530 2 / 5 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of recovery dated 16/06/2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Block Education Officer, Dharsiwa, District Raipur C.G. whereby the order of recovery of excess payment to the tune of Rs. 2,23,520/- has been issued against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 directing recovery of an alleged excess payment of Rs.2,23,520/- is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the settled principles of natural justice. It is contended that before passing the impugned order, neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to him. The petitioner was never informed about the basis of the alleged excess payment, the manner in which the amount was calculated, or the reasons for proposing recovery. Consequently, the petitioner was deprived of an effective opportunity to place his defence and explain that the alleged excess payment, if any, was not attributable to any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. It is further submitted that the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned recovery order behind the back of the petitioner in complete disregard of the audi alteram partem rule, which constitutes an integral facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Any administrative or quasi- 3 / 5 judicial order entailing civil consequences cannot be sustained unless the affected employee is first put on notice and granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 3. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order visits the petitioner with serious civil consequences inasmuch as it directs recovery of a substantial amount from his salary. Such an order could not have been passed mechanically without first complying with the mandatory requirement of observing the principles of natural justice. The failure to afford a pre-decisional hearing vitiates the entire decision-making process and renders the impugned order unsustainable in law and the impugned recovery order be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that if the payments have mistakenly been made by the employer in excess of their entitlement the same can always be recovered as soon as the same comes to the notice of the authorities granting the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The principal grievance raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 directing recovery of the alleged excess payment has been passed without issuance of any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The respondents have not been able to demonstrate from the record that, prior to issuance of the 4 / 5 impugned order, the petitioner was served with any notice disclosing the basis of the proposed recovery or that he was granted an effective opportunity to submit his explanation. 7. It is trite that whenever an administrative action entails adverse civil consequences, strict adherence to the principles of natural justice is indispensable unless specifically excluded by statute. A recovery order affecting the pecuniary rights of an employee undoubtedly visits him with civil consequences and, therefore, cannot be sustained if passed in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. Compliance with the principles of natural justice is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power. 8. In the present case, since the impugned order has admittedly been passed without granting the petitioner any prior notice or opportunity of hearing, the same stands vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court, therefore, is not required to examine the merits of the proposed recovery or the rival claims of the parties, as the impugned order itself is liable to be set aside on the aforesaid limited ground. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the limited extent that the impugned recovery order dated 16.06.2026 is hereby quashed solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Liberty is, however, reserved in favour of the competent authority to initiate fresh proceedings, if so advised, by issuing an 5 / 5 appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner, supplying the relevant material relied upon, affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and thereafter passing a fresh reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proposed recovery, and all questions in that regard are left open to be considered by the competent authority. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti