Recovery from salary as a prescribed minor penalty can only be imposed after following the due process of law.

ROHIT ARYA, J.

1. I.A. No. 4493/2015, an application seeking exemption from filing additional Court fees is considered and allowed for reasons mentioned therein. Petitioners are exempted to prosecute this petition jointly. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs:--

"1. Impugned orders Annexures P/2, P/4, P/6, P/8, P/10 and P/12 may kindly be set aside.

2. If any amount has been recovered may kindly be directed to be returned to them alongwith interest.

3. The other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. This petition is being disposed of at this stage."

The sole grievance of the petitioners is that without following the due process of law as prescribed under Rules 14 and 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1966 (for brevity "C.C.A. Rules 1966") of holding departmental enquiry, a direction has been issued by the impugned order Annexures P/2, P/4, P/6, P/8, P/10 and P/12 to recover amounts of Rs. 32,200/-, 46,000/-, 48,800/-, 39,100/-, 13,800/- and 20,700/- from the petitioners respectively.

2. The employer is well within its rights to make recovery after following due process of law since recovery from salary is one of the prescribed minor penalties under Rule 10 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1966, which can be imposed only after following the due process of law prescribed under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1966.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 10 SCJ 700, which lays down guidelines prescribing eventualities which entitle the employer to make recovery from an employee of excess payment.

4. The abovesaid decision of the Apex Court relates to the fact situation where recovery is being made of an amount which has been paid in the past in excess of entitlement of the employee concerned, but does not relate to the power of the employer to make recovery arising out of alleged misconduct as is the case herein.

5. Indisputably, the amount sought to be recovered by the impugned order is in respect of omission/commission committed by the petitioners during execution of Cycle Vitaran Yojna 2008-2009. Thus, the aforesaid decision of Rafiq Mashh (supra) is of no avail to the petitioners. In view of the legal position as enumerated above, this Court without entering into the requirement of calling upon the State to file its return, disposes of this petition with the following directions:--

"The impugned recovery sought vide Annexures P/2, P/4, P/6, P/8, P/10 and P/12 dated 20/04/2015 can be made only after following the due process of law as prescribed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 not otherwise: and No order as to cost."

Disposed Off.