IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 14 OF JULY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 7289 of 2015 SUNDAR BABU SAXENA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Raghvendra Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri M.S. Jadon - Govt. Advocate for the State.

Shri Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

ORDER The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

"i- That, recovery order and order of forfeiting the amount of retrial dues like pension, gratuity, arrears of 6th pay, security amount etc. payable to petitioner (Ann. P/1 and P/2) may kindly be quashed.

ii- That, so called enquiry initiated by them after petitioner's retirement may kindly be dropped/quashed, consequently respondents may kindly be directed to pay retrial dues like pension, gratuity, arrears of 6th pay, security amount etc. of petitioner on account of his retirement forthwith along with interest of 18% per annum.

Signature Not Verified iii-That, cost and any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, may kindly, be awarded in the interest of justice."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued before this Court that the petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Society Manager in the respondent No.3/District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. in the year, 1979, stood retired from service on 31.08.2013 after serving 33 years therein and even the authority had issued no dues certificate in his favour.

3. It was further argued that the Principal Officer under section 3 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 in exercise of powers under section 55(1) of the Act had framed Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Ke Sewayukton Ke (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karya Stithi) Seva Niyam (for short "the Seva Niyam") which had statutory force in view of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Sewaram vs. Board of Revenue reported in 1983 RN 353.

4. It was further argued that the impugned orders issuing direction for recovery of alleged amount against the petitioner, are absolutely without jurisdiction and against the Seva Niyam, as they could not have been passed without holding departmental enquiry, issuance of charge-sheet and giving opportunity to lead evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses as provided under the Seva Niyam. The Departmental Enquiry was to be conducted as per the procedure, as contemplated under Section 49 of the Seva Niyam, but the respondents without following the procedure as prescribed under the Seva Niyam had issued orders for recovery, which amounts to violation of Signature Not Verified principles of natural justice and is against the settled tenets of service jurisprudence.

5. It was further argued that even otherwise, as per Rule 49.5 of the Seva Niyam, no departmental enquiry shall be conducted against the retired employees, after expiry of the period of two years from the date of retirement and the amount of gratuity and pension is characterised as property under Article 300-A, which cannot be adjusted and forfeited after retirement, no departmental enquiry was ever established or no effort was ever initiated to determine the liability upon petitioner towards such recovery.

6. It was also argued that in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in case of Union of India & Another vs. C.P. Singh reported in I.L.R. (2004) M.P. 940 , a regular departmental enquiry was required to be initiated to impose the punishment of recovery against the petitioner but herein case, no such enquiry has been conducted and as such the impugned order is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents had opposed the prayer so made by the counsel for the petitioner and had prayed for dismissal of the present petition, as the orders impugned herein had rightly been passed which don't call for any in