Digitally signed by SHAYNA 2025:CGHC:55705 KADRI NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1886 of 2023

1 - Manthir Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Derharam Sahu Aged About 75 Years Retired Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Vivekanand, Girdhari-Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Pradhan Mahmalekhakar (Lkha And Haqdri) Zeo Point Baloda-Bazar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - District Education Officer, Durg Chhattisgarh.

4 - Block Education Officer, Durg Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

14/11/2025

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :

“10.1 That, reminder dated 24-01-2023 annexure P-1 addressed to BEO Durg to recover Rs. 67,357.00 with interested @ 25%

from petitioner may kindly be quashed.

10.2 That, cost of litigation and any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly also be awarded.”

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the present petition arises out of an order issued by respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 4, directing the recovery of an amount of Rs. 67,357, along with 25% interest, from the petitioner. This demand for recovery is made without any prior inquiry or opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The impugned letter Annexure P-1 was issued by the concerned authorities despite the fact that the petitioner has not been at fault in any manner. The petitioner retired from his position on 30^th June 2011, and the demand for recovery was made long after his retirement. However, no proper inquiry was conducted, nor was any opportunity granted to the petitioner to defend himself before this recovery order was issued. The petitioner contends that the recovery demand, issued without following the due process of law, is therefore void and unlawful. Before the issuance of Annexure P-1, an unsigned reminder letter dated 23^rd November 2022 was sent by respondent no. 1, which was also a part of the series of actions leading to the demand for recovery. In response to this demand, the petitioner’s counsel sent a formal reply on 16^th January 2023, arguing that the recovery was made in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, was illegal. In view of these facts, the petitioner seeks to challenge the recovery order made against him, asserting that the demand for recovery is unjust, illegal, and made without following the due process or principles of natural justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned action of the respondents in demanding recovery of Rs. 67,357 from the petitioner, as outlined in Annexure P-1, is wholly impermissible under the law and should be set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafik Masih (White Washer) and others, has clearly held in para 3 that no recovery can be made from an employee without first providing them an opportunity of hearing and without adequately showing the reasons and the part played by the employee in the alleged financial discrepancies. It is submitted that, in the present case, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to present his side of the matter before the recovery order was made. The respondents have failed to follow this fundamental principle of natural justice. Therefore, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the demand for recovery from the petitioner is not legally sustainable. Further, Annexure P-1 establishes that the recovery order was issued long after the petitioner’s retirement on 30^th June 2011. This delay in issuing the recovery order is impermissible in law, as held by the Hon'ble Supre