1 2026:CGHC:17679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4712 of 2021 Ashwani Kumar Shukla S/o Late Shri Yogendra Prasad Shukla Aged About 57 Years Occupation- Assistant Jail Superintendent (Up Jail Manendragarh) District Koriya C.G. R/o G-1 Jail Parisar Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Home (Jail), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Of Jail, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Inspector General (Jail), Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jail Superintendent (Up Jail Manendragarh) District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 29/02/2020 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-1) in the interest of justice. 2 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to drop the recovery proceeding initiated pursuant to the impugned order dated 29/02/2020, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Jail Superintendent in Sub Jail, Surajpur, in the year 2007, a departmental inquiry was initiated in against him the year 2007 and he was removed from service vide order dated 15.06.2009. He would further submit that thereafter a departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was partly allowed in the 25.11.2011, and order of dismissal from service was modified, instead, a punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed. He would contend that respondent No. 3 issued an order dated 29.02.2019, wherein a direction has been issued to recover an amount of excess payment paid to the petitioner. He would contend that respondent No.3 has discussed various instances whereby minor/major penalties were inflicted upon the petitioner and, on the said basis, the impugned order has been passed. He would further contend that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing and even the amount of recovery has been determined and specified in the order itself. He would also submit that the order impugned dated 29.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), whereby recovery is proposed, is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that a penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner, and the salary of the petitioner was 3 not properly revised, therefore, steps have been taken to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 5. Perusal of Annexure P-1 reveals that a direction has been issued to recover the amount of excess payment without assigning sufficient reasons. It is further apparent from perusal of the order that sufficient opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner; even a show- cause notice was not issued, therefore, the observations made by respondent No. 3 with regard to recovery of excess payment are hereby quashed. 6. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to reconsider the matter of the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing to him. 7. A decision shall be taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with regard to recovery of excess payment, if any, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Since, the petitioner is about to retire in the month of July, 2026, the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within the stipulated period. 9. With the above observation(s) and direction(s), the petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim