Ku. Upasana Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:33504

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 168 of 2023

¶7

1 - Ku. Upasana Dhruw D/o Shri Niramal Singh Dhruw Aged About 27 Years Presently Posted And Working As Technical Assistant, Janpad Panchayat Deobhog,, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Collector Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Deobhog, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - Sub Divisional Officer Rural Engineering Service, Sub Division Deobhog, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - Darshanram Soni Janpad Member Region No.4, Janpad Panchayat Deobhog, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶17

2

¶18

For Respondent(s)/ :	Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer.
State
For Respondent No. 3 :	Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 4 :	Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 6 :	Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate.

¶19

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

16/07/2025

¶22

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

¶23

“10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the Petitioner.

¶24

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and quashed the impugned letters dated-05.12.2022 and 02.12.2022 (Annexure-P/1) and letter dated-02.01.2023 (AnnexureP/2).

¶25

10.3 That, Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation and effect of the letters dated-05.12.2022 and 02.12.2022 (Annexure-P/1) and letter dated02.01.2023 (Annexure-P/2), till the pendency of the instant writ petition.

¶26

10.4 Any other relief which Hon'ble Court deems fit and

¶27

3

¶28

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of petition.”

¶29

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant (Contract) under the Mahatma Gandhi NAREGA scheme up to 28.02.2018 from the date of joining and she joined on 30.01.2018. Her services were extended from time to time, and presently she is posted as a Technical Assistant at Janpad Panchayat Deobhog, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. The services of the petitioner are governed by the C.G. Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 and C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The petitioner has discharged her duties diligently, sincerely and honestly without any complaint throughout her career and has worked for about four years without any break in service. On 20.09.2021, certain resolutions were passed in a meeting of Gram Panchayat Ghumarguda related to works, which were duly approved by respondent No. 4, following which a work order was issued on 30.12.2021, funds were released and the work was completed as per rules. Payments were made to laborers and others only after verification and approval by competent authorities. The petitioner possesses the muster roll and measurement book, which shall be produced before this Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing due to their bulky nature. On 06.06.2022, respondent No. 6 submitted a

¶30

4

¶31

complaint alleging misappropriation and irregularities in the work of Botka Niji Talab Nirman and Govt. Litiguriya Talab Nirman, though the complaint was later withdrawn. However, without considering the withdrawal, respondent No. 4 constituted an inquiry committee on 18.06.2022, which submitted a report on 20.07.2022 recommending recovery of alleged excess payment from the petitioner and others despite no statement in the report directly implicating the petitioner. Based on this report, respondent No. 4 has issued letters dated 02.08.2022 and 10.08.2022 seeking an explanation and recommending disciplinary action. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 has issued a show-cause notice on 17.11.2022, to which the petitioner replied denying all allegations. Despite this, respondent No. 3 directed recovery from the petitioner without granting her an opportunity of hearing or supplying relevant documents, and respondent No. 4 instructed the petitioner to deposit the amount in the Zila Panchayat account. The impugned letters and actions are illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to settled service law, leaving the petitioner with no option but to approach this Hon’ble Court for redressal of her grievances.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of recovery is wholly illegal arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, as the same has been passed

¶33

5

¶34

without issuance of any prior notice to the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. He further submits that before passing any order having civil consequences, it is incumbent upon the competent authority to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected person, which in the present case has not been done, rendering the order unsustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner are without any foundation, in as much as the entire action is based upon a complaint made by respondent No. 6, which has subsequently been withdrawn by the complainant himself. He further submits that once the complainant has retracted his allegations and withdrawn the complaint, there remains no basis for the continuation of the proceedings or for the passing of an order of recovery against the petitioner. He further submits that the action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also smacks of mala fides, as it seeks to penalize the petitioner without any supporting material or inquiry. He asserts that such an approach violates the mandate of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantee fairness and due process. He further submits that the impugned order of recovery deserves to be set aside being illegal, arbitrary and passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶35

6

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 respectfully submits that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to reserve liberty in favour of respondent No. 3 so that, in the event of any future proceedings or actions being initiated, respondent No. 3 may be afforded proper notice and an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He further submits that such liberty is necessary to safeguard the legal rights and interests of respondent No. 3 and to ensure that no adverse order is passed without granting due opportunity to present its case. He further submits that the requirement of issuance of notice and providing an effective opportunity of hearing is a settled position of law, and therefore, liberty in this regard may graciously be preserved in favour of respondent No. 3.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶38

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that although notices have been issued to the parties concerned, no proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. It is a settled principle of natural justice that no adverse order should be passed without granting an adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected party. In the

¶39

7

¶40

absence of compliance with this fundamental requirement, the impugned order, to the extent it pertains to the recovery proceedings, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order in respect of recovery is hereby set aside/quashed at this stage, with liberty to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law after providing due notice and an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶42

However, liberty is reserved to respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate order afresh while giving proper opportunity of hearing and then to take a decision in the matter.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶45

Raghu Jat

Ku. Upasana Dhruw v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Upasana Dhruw v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pitamber Das

Smt. Sugantin Bai Vs Lokesh Das Manikpuri

Smt. Shringarkali Agrawal Vs Jeevrakhan Sahu

Suresh Kumar Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pritam Rathore Vs Director General, Home Guard Fire and Emergency Services

Anjani Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh