1 2026:CGHC:16858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1265 of 2021 1 - Gautam Dadsena S/o Late Shri Kartik Ram Dadsena Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jamdi, P. O. Shirko, Thana Basna District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co- Operative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Primary, Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Limited Basna Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, The Primary, Agricultural Credit Co- Operative Society Limited, Basna Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Registration No. 1327 4 - The Collector Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - The District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioners : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the letter dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no. 2, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the respondents, in the interest of Justice. 10.3 That, Any other order of orders or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are that the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Clerk in the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). For the procurement season of the year 2019–20, the petitioner was also assigned the additional responsibility as in-charge of Paddy Collection Center at Badetemri, Basna. During the course of his duties, respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 27.02.2020 to respondent No. 5 requesting immediate transportation of the procured paddy. 3 However, according to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 failed to take timely action and did not transport the paddy as required, which ultimately contributed to the alleged discrepancies. It is further the case of the petitioner that he himself made a representation dated 20.05.2020 to respondent No. 2, requesting for prompt transportation of the paddy so as to avoid any loss or deficiency. Despite such communication, no effective steps were taken by the concerned authorities. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 05.12.2020 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,71,661.60/- within seven days on account of alleged deficiency in paddy procurement. The petitioner, in response to the said notice, submitted a detailed reply dated 02.02.2021, contending that he is merely a lower-level employee working as an Assistant Clerk and his role is limited to maintaining records. It was specifically asserted that he is not responsible for any physical shortage or deficiency in the stock of paddy, as such responsibilities lie with higher authorities and those entrusted with transportation and storage. However, it appears that during the final audit, a deficiency of 700.64 quintals of paddy was recorded. On the basis of the said audit report, respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order/letter dated 02.02.2021 directing the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,71,661.60/-. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the impugned notice is illegal, arbitrary and 4 unconstitutional, as the liability has been fastened upon him without proper consideration of his role and without due process of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter dated 02.02.2021 issued by respondent No. 3 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, perverse and unconstitutional, and therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. The said action has been taken in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind and in complete disregard of the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is merely working on the post of Assistant Clerk and his duties are confined to maintaining records of paddy procured from the villagers. The petitioner has no role whatsoever in the storage, preservation or transportation of the paddy. The responsibility for transportation lies with respondent No. 5 and overall supervision rests with the concerned authorities of the society. However, without considering this material aspect, the respondents have erroneously fastened liability upon the petitioner, which is wholly unjustified. It is also submitted that the respondents have not conducted any inquiry whatsoever to ascertain the actual cause of the alleged deficiency in paddy. Without undertaking any fact-finding exercise or affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his position in a proper inquiry, the respondents have straightaway imposed a heavy financial liability upon him. Such action is in clear violation 5 of principles of natural justice and is arbitrary in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner had, on several occasions, requested the concerned authorities, including respondent No. 5, to ensure timely transportation of the paddy. Even respondent No. 2 had issued a letter dated 27.02.2020 directing immediate transportation. However, due to inaction on the part of the responsible authorities and further owing to heavy rainfall during the procurement season of 2019–20, the paddy could not be properly preserved, resulting in deficiency of approximately 700 quintals. The petitioner cannot be held liable for circumstances beyond his control. It is also submitted that in similar matters, this Court has consistently held that before fastening any liability, a proper inquiry must be conducted to identify the person actually responsible for the alleged loss. In the present case, however, no such inquiry has been conducted and the petitioner has been arbitrarily held responsible, which renders the impugned action unsustainable in law. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner, being a low-paid employee working as an Assistant Clerk, is not in a position to deposit the huge amount of Rs. 12,71,661.60/- as demanded by the respondents, particularly in absence of any adjudication of liability through a lawful inquiry. On this ground as well, the impugned demand is harsh, unreasonable and liable to be quashed. 6 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the averments made by the petitioner primarily relate to his service conditions and the demand raised by respondent No. 2 in respect of the alleged deficiency in paddy procurement during the year 2019–20. The petitioner has contended that he was working as an Assistant Clerk and was also assigned the charge of In-charge Paddy Collection Centre, Badetemri, Basna, and that despite communications dated 27.02.2020 and 20.05.2020 requesting transportation of paddy, the same was not carried out in time, ultimately resulting in the alleged deficiency. It is further stated that a notice dated 05.12.2020 was issued directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 12,71,661/-. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the writ petition would reveal that the petitioner has essentially challenged the letter dated 02.02.2021, whereby the demand has been raised by respondent No. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is thus directed against respondent No. 2, and no specific allegations have been made against the State. Therefore, respondent No. 2, i.e., the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, is the main contesting party, and the State has been impleaded only in a formal capacity. It is further submitted that, without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the efficacious alternative remedy available under the provisions of the 7 Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The dispute raised by the petitioner pertains to service and financial liability within the cooperative framework, for which appropriate statutory remedies are available, and the petitioner ought to have availed the same before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the core issue involved in the present case pertains to fastening of financial liability upon the petitioner on account of alleged shortage/deficiency of paddy during the procurement season 2019–20. 6. From the facts as brought on record, it appears that the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Clerk and was additionally assigned the charge of In-charge Paddy Collection Centre, has been directed to deposit a substantial amount of Rs. 12,71,661.60/- on the basis of an audit report indicating shortage of 700.64 quintals of paddy. It is also evident that the petitioner has consistently taken a stand that his role was limited in nature and that he had no direct control over transportation and storage of paddy, which are material aspects for determining the cause of such alleged shortage. It further emerges that the petitioner had made representations to the concerned authorities for timely transportation of paddy, which, according to him, were not acted upon. At the same time, this Court also notices that the impugned 8 action of raising demand appears to have been taken without conducting any detailed inquiry or investigation to ascertain the actual cause of the alleged shortage and to fix responsibility upon the concerned person(s). 7. In matters involving financial liability, particularly where multiple functionaries are involved in the process of procurement, storage and transportation, it is imperative that a proper fact-finding exercise is undertaken before fastening liability upon any individual employee. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to first undertake a proper inquiry into the matter. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents first to undertake preliminary inquiry/investigation in respect of any alleged shortage of paddy or loss caused to the respondents in the process of purchase of paddy. In the course of such inquiry, it shall be ascertained as to whether there has been any shortage of paddy, whether any loss or damage has actually been caused, and further as to whether such shortage or loss is attributable to any deliberate or wilful act on the part of the petitioner or any other office bearers involved in the process. Only upon such determination, the respondents shall proceed to take 9 appropriate action in accordance with law and in terms of the agreement/contract governing the parties. 9. It is further directed that in the event any dispute persists with regard to the quantity, quality or other related aspects of paddy, the same shall be resolved strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties, as well as the applicable standards and specifications provided therein. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge