1 - D. S. Rajput S/o Shri Karan Singh Rajput, Aged About 62 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3818 of 2017 1 - D. S. Rajput S/o Shri Karan Singh Rajput, Aged About 62 Years R/o Khairagarh, District Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) 2 - The Director Agriculture, Directorate Of Agriculture, Labhandi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., Raipur, District 3 - The Deputy Director Agriculture Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon, 4 - The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPS No. 5402 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
1 - D.S. Rajput S/o Shri Karan Singh Rajput Aged About 65 Years R/o Khairagarh, District Rajnandgon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director (Agriculture) Directorate, Of Agriculture, Labhandi, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Director (Agriculture) Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 5 - The Deputy General Manager (Eastablishment), Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikash Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Processing Incharge, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Processing Unit Shivpuri, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State For Respondent–Seed Corporation in WPS/3818/2017 For Respondent–Seed Corporation in WPS/5402/2019 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Adv. : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. : Mr. Shayon Kar, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Palash Tiwari, Adv. : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 04-07-2025 1) In WPS No. 3818 of 2017, the petitioner has challenged the recovery notice dated 31.05.2017 to the tune of Rs. 3,06,655/- issued to him by respondent No. 4, whereas in WPS No. 5402 of 2019, he has challenged the recovery notice dated 13.06.2019 and 18.06.2019 issued by respondent No. 4. 2) Facts of the present cases are that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer on 17.07.1982; he was promoted to the post of Agriculture Development Officer on 10.12.1982; he was later promoted to Senior Agriculture Development Officer on 10.11.1997. On 25.10.2008, he was sent on deputation to Seed Corporation and on 03.02.2011, he was repatriated to the parent department. In the order dated 03.02.2011, it is stated that a departmental inquiry was pending against the petitioner initiated by respondent No. 4 and in that inquiry, 17 charges were found proved. 3 The order dated 03.02.2011 was assailed by the petitioner in WPS No. 876 of 2011 and the same was allowed vide order dated 12.04.2012 and the said order was quashed. Thereafter, the respondents issued show-cause notices on the ground that the petitioner while working under respondent No. 4 caused a loss to the institution to the tune of Rs. 3,06,655/-. In both petitions, the petitioner has challenged three recovery notices issued against him. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got retired from service on 30.04.2017 and thereafter, notices were served upon him with regard to the recovery of Rs. 3,06,655/-. He further submits that the order of recovery is a minor punishment according to Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the penalty of recovery cannot be inflicted without holding a proper departmental inquiry. He contends that no departmental inquiry was conducted by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner and even in the return filed by respondent No. 4, documents have not been placed on record to demonstrate whether any inquiry is/was pending against the petitioner. He further submits that as no inquiry was conducted before the issuance of recovery notices, the same deserve to be quashed. 4) On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the State was directed by the Seed Corporation to deduct an amount of Rs. 3,06,655/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner and pursuant to that order, the said amount was deducted. He further submits that respondent No. 4 has to demonstrate whether any inquiry has been conducted or a penalty has been inflicted. 5) Learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4–Seed 4 Corporation submit that an audit objection was raised on the basis of the ledger and accounts to the effect that the petitioner while working with the Seed Corporation caused financial loss to the corporation to the tune of Rs. 3,06,655/-, therefore, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner and he was directed to deposit the said amount. He further submits that as the financial irregularities are evident on the face of the record, there was no need to hold any inquiry. He prays that these petitions may be dismissed. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7) Perusal of the show-cause notices issued by the Seed Corporation would show that the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,06,655/-. From a perusal of the return filed by respondent No. 4, it appears that the petitioner while working under respondent No. 4 caused financial loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 3,06,655/- and after the audit objection, notices were issued, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount. 8) Rule 10 of the CCA Rules, 1966 deals with the minor penalty and recovery from pay falls within the category of a minor penalty. The procedure to impose a minor penalty is provided under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1966 and the same is reproduced herein below:- 16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties. (1)Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall be made except after- (a)informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity 5 of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b)holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c)taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d)recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (e)consulting the commission where such consultation is necessary. [(1-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government Servant under clause (a) of that sub- rule to withhold increments of pay of Stagnation Allowance and such withholding or increments of pay or Stagnation Allowance is likely to effect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance for a period exceeding three years of to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.] [Inserted by Notification No. C-6-30-92-3-I, dated 22-6-1992.] (2)The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include- (i)a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii)a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii)his representation, if any; (iv)the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v)the advice of the commission, if /any; (vi)the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (vii)the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor. 9) In the present case, it appears that no inquiry was conducted by the 6 respondent No. 4 – Seed Corporation against the petitioner before the issuance of recovery notices, thus the impugned notices are in violation of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, show-cause notices are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. Respondent authorities are directed to make payment of the recovered amount to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from today, if already not paid. 10) Accordingly, these petitions stand allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.07 14:14:52 +0530