Ishwari Prasad Shyam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Ishwari Prasad Shyam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned recovery order dated 09.02.2012 pertaining to the petitioner was quashed and the petition was allowed; the State authorities were left at liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry and pass appropriate order after affording due opportunity of hearing. The prayer for refund of the recovered amount (clause 10.3) was not separately addressed in the operative order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery order dated 09.02.2012 issued against the petitioner, allegedly passed without show cause notice or enquiry, is liable to be quashed. +2 more

Court's answer

No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted by the authorities concerned before issuance of the impugned recovery order dated 09.02.2012.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis as 'Technical Assistant' when the stop-dam was constructed, he cannot be made liable for the damage to the stop-dam; the responsibility lies on the then Sub Divisional Officer (Rural Engg.), D.P. Chandrakar, who was assigned to supervise and inspect the work.

Key takeaways

The impugned recovery order dated 09.02.2012, pertaining to the petitioner, is liable to be and is hereby quashed.ratio¶35
The State authorities would be at liberty to enquire into the matter and pass appropriate order after affording due opportunity of hearing, if so advised.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), single judge (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.), WPS No. 140 of 2013, order dated 12.06.2024 (marked NAFR). The petitioner, initially engaged as a contractual Technical Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Program (appointment order dated 14.12.2007), was later regularised as Sub Engineer (Civil) on 24.12.2011. A recovery of Rs. 6,95,250/- (stated as 6.95250 lakh) was ordered against him on 09.02.2012 in respect of damage to a stop-dam constructed in 2009-10. The Court held from a bare perusal of the recovery order that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted, and that a contractual Technical Assistant could not be made liable for the damage, responsibility lying instead on the then SDO (Rural Engg.), D.P. Chandrakar, who supervised and inspected the work. The recovery order dated 09.02.2012 pertaining to the petitioner was quashed, the State was left free to enquire afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing, and the writ petition was allowed.

-1-

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No. 140 of 2013

Ishwari Prasad Shyam S/o Bhagwat Prasad Shyam Aged About 41 Years, Junior Engineer Nagar Nigam Chirmiri, R/o Pondi, Thana Pondi, Tah Baikunthpur, Distt Korea, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Deptt Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Service Division, Baikunthpur, District : Korea (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

Executive Engineer Pradanmantri Gram Sadak Yojana, District : Korea (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

Commissioner Nagar Palika Nigam, Chirmiri, District : Korea (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

6. The Collector, Korea, District : Korea (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate

For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

12.06.2024

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):-

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set aside the order dated 09.02.12 passed by the respondent no.2.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash/ set aside the order dated 15/3/12 Annexure P/8 and 07/5/12 Annexure P/ 10.

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount which had been recovered from the salary of the petitioner.

10.4 Any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioner,

-2-

which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

1. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was posted as Technical Assistant, at the relevant time, on contractual basis for 1 year under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Program in Panchayat & Rural Development Department vide order dated 14.12.2007. In the year 2009–10, stop-dam was constructed on Mudghora Canon in the approach Road to Nagvaa to Beharpur. Information was received by the department that some part of the stop-dam got damaged.

1. On 24.12.2011, the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis as Sub Engineer (Civil) and posted under the Municipal Corporation Chirmiri, District Korea. Immediately thereafter, on 9.02.2012, the order of recovery of Rs.6.95250.00- 6.95250.00 lakh was issued against the petitioner, and one D. P. Chandrakar, Sub Divisonal Officer (Rural Engineering Services) Sub Division Manendragarh.

1. Mr. Kotecha would further submit that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner, and surprisingly recovery order dated 09.02.2012 was issued; thus, impugned recovery order dated 09.02.2012 is liable to be quashed.

1. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner was working as Technical Assistant and Mr. D.P. Chandrakar, Sub Divisional Officer (Rural Engg.), was assigned to look after the work of stop-dam, and when the information of stop-dam was received by the Department, an enquiry was conducted by the concerned Officer. He would further submit that there is categorical finding that the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Chandrakar failed to protect the stop-dam; thus, he would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file.

1. It is true that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of ‘Technical Assistant’ on a contractual basis for one year under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme; during construction of stop-dam in the year 2009-10, the petitioner was working as Technical Assistant and Mr. D.P. Chandrakar, SDO(Rural Engg.), was

-3-

authorized to supervise the work of stop-dam. Later, on 24.12.2011, the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis as Sub-Engineer under the respondent No.3.

From bare perusal of the impugned recovery order dated 09.02.2012, it appears that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted by the authorities concerned; when dam was constructed, the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis on the post of ‘Technical Assistant’ and he can not be made liable for the damage occurred on the stop-dam. However, the responsibility lies on then the Sub Divisional Officer (Rural Engg.) Mr. D.P. Chandrakar, who was assigned to supervise and inspect the work of stop-dam.

1. Taking into consideration the above stated facts, the impugned recovery order dated 09.02.2012 , pertaining to the petitioner, is liable to be and is hereby quashed .

10) However, the State authorities would be at liberty to enquire into the matter and pass appropriate order after affording due opportunity of hearing, if so advised.

11) Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

Nadim