SMT. DULESH KARIYAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010158942023 2026:CGHC:45118
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2258 of 2023
1 - Smt. Dulesh Kariyam W/o Ram Singh Aged About 52 Years Sarpanch,
Gram Panchayat, Chirmi, Block- Khadgawan, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector, Baikunthpur District- Korea, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Food Officer District- Korea, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur District- Korea,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
26/10/2026
1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and
propriety of the orders dated 27.03.2023 and 24.04.2023, whereby
respondent No.4/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) directed recovery of

2
a sum of Rs.15,80,763.56/- from the petitioner on account of alleged
shortage of food grains in the Government Fair Price Shop, Chirmi,
bearing I.D. No.532004022. The petitioner has prayed for following
relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call the entire records pertaining to
case of petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby
setting-aside/quashing the impugned orders
dated 27.03.2023 & 24.04.2023 (Annexure
P/1).
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may
deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances
of the case including award of the costs of the
petition may be given.”
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was
managing the aforesaid Government Fair Price Shop, has challenged the
recovery orders mainly on the ground that the same have been passed
without affording an effective opportunity of hearing and without
conducting any proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the
Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. It is the
case of the petitioner that the alleged shortage was determined on the
basis of physical verification, but neither the physical verification report
nor the Panchnama was supplied to her and no proper proceedings were
conducted before fastening the liability upon her. Being aggrieved by the

3
aforesaid orders, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned
recovery orders are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law, having
been passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. It is contended that no proper enquiry was conducted before
fastening the liability upon the petitioner and that the alleged shortage of
food grains has been determined merely on the basis of physical
verification, the report whereof was never supplied to the petitioner. He
would further submit that the impugned orders have been passed in
complete violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure
prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control)
Order, 2016. It is submitted that neither any evidence was recorded nor
the petitioner was afforded an effective opportunity to controvert the
alleged shortage or the material relied upon by the authorities. It is,
therefore, contended that the availability of an alternative remedy would
not operate as a bar to the maintainability of the present writ petition,
particularly when the impugned orders have allegedly been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and supports
the impugned orders. It is submitted that the writ petition is not
maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedy of appeal
available under Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016, which the petitioner has failed to avail. It is
further submitted that during physical verification of the Fair Price Shop,

4
shortage of food grains was detected and a Panchnama was prepared.
Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 09.12.2022 was issued to the
petitioner, calling upon her to submit her explanation, and the petitioner
subsequently submitted her reply. The said explanation was found
unsatisfactory and, thereafter, the impugned recovery order dated
27.03.2023 was passed. It is thus submitted that sufficient opportunity
was afforded to the petitioner and the allegations of violation of
principles of natural justice are unfounded. He would further submit that
the petitioner was managing the affairs of the Fair Price Shop and the
shortage was detected during physical verification. Despite being called
upon to explain the shortage and to produce relevant documents showing
that the alleged shortage had been compensated, the petitioner failed to
furnish satisfactory material in support of her explanation. It is,
therefore, submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in
accordance with law and, in any event, the petitioner has an efficacious
alternative remedy of appeal, which he has failed to exhaust.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
pleadings of the parties and the documents brought on record.
6. From a perusal of the order-sheet dated 15.06.2023, it transpires that
while entertaining the writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court
had recorded a prima facie finding that the State was not in a position to
demonstrate whether an effective opportunity of hearing had been
afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned recovery
orders. The Coordinate Bench also took note of the specific contention of
the petitioner that no preliminary enquiry had been conducted before

5
fastening liability upon her. Being prima facie satisfied that the petitioner
had made out a strong case for grant of interim protection, the
Coordinate Bench admitted the writ petition and stayed the recovery
proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned orders, which interim
protection continued during the pendency of the present writ petition.
7. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon
careful examination of the material available on record, it seems that
although the respondents have sought to justify the recovery proceedings
by placing reliance upon the physical verification report, Panchnama and
show-cause notice dated 09.12.2022, the records do not satisfactorily
demonstrate that a comprehensive enquiry, in conformity with the
requirements of Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2016, was conducted before determining the
petitioner's liability.
8. The principles of natural justice are not empty formalities. Whenever
civil consequences ensue by way of recovery of public money or
determination of liability against a person, the authority concerned is
duty-bound to conduct a fair, transparent and meaningful enquiry by
affording an adequate opportunity to the affected person. Such
opportunity necessarily includes disclosure of the material sought to be
relied upon, permitting the petitioner to controvert the allegations,
adducing evidence, examining relevant witnesses wherever necessary
and thereafter recording reasoned findings based upon the evidence
available on record.

6
9. The principles of natural justice have been dealt with by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in ‘n’ number of cases, holding that the same must be
strictly adhered to. In the matter of Aureliano Fernandes v. State of
Goa and others, (2024) 1 SCC 632, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
“35. Principles of natural justice that are reflected in
Article 311, are not an empty incantation. They form the
very bedrock of Article 14 and any violation of these
principles tantamounts to a violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Denial of the principles of natural justice
to a public servant can invalidate a decision taken on
the ground that it is hit by the vice of arbitrariness and
would result in depriving a public servant of equal
protection of law.
36. Article 14, often described as the “Constitutional
Guardian” of the principles of natural justice, expressly
forbids the State, as defined in Article 12, from denying
to any person, equality before the law or equal
protection of the laws. Article 14 provides an express
guarantee of equality before the law to all persons and
extends a protection to them against discrimination by
any law. Article 13(3)(a) defines “law” to include any
ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification,
custom or usages having in the territory of India, the
force of law. Thus, principles of natural justice
guaranteed under Article 14, prohibit a decision-
making adjudicatory authority from taking any
arbitrary action, be it substantive or procedural in
nature. These principles of natural justice, that are a
natural law, have evolved over a period of time and
been continuously refined through the process of
expansive judicial interpretation.”
10.In the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary,
Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025

7
SCC OnLine SC 891, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the
aforesaid principle and held as under:
“ 38. Thus, the right to receive the enquiry report as a
fundamental safeguard in disciplinary proceedings,
where such report holds the charges against the
delinquent employee to be established, was firmly
entrenched by the Constitution Bench in the
jurisprudence relating to proceedings initiated for
disciplinary action for misconduct. This valuable right
applies uniformly, regardless of who the employer is
(Government, public or private) and regardless of what
the rules governing the service ordain. Even if the
rules are silent or do not require furnishing of the
enquiry report, the same has to be furnished.
Additionally, the report must be furnished to the
employee even without a request, as it forms an
integral part of ensuring a fair and reasonable
opportunity to defend against the charges. By not
furnishing the report, an employer cannot scuttle the
rights of the delinquent employee.
42. Be that as it may, the question that troubles us is
this : does the law laid down while answering
incidental questions have the effect of overriding or
prevailing over or modifying the law declared on the
main issue by the Constitution Bench? Questions (v),
(vi) and (vii) framed by the Constitution Bench in B.
Karunakar (supra), to our mind, were necessitated
because of the error/anomaly that was noticed in the
ultimate direction in Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra). As
we read and understand the law laid down in B.
Karunakar (supra), the answers to questions (v), (vi)
and (vii) were intended to have limited application,
that is, to matters which were already pending before
this Court or before the high courts as on date the
Constitution Bench rendered its decision, where the
challenge was laid to punishment orders passed, both
prior to and post November 20, 1990, i.e., the day
when Mohd. Rizwan Khan (supra) was decided. And
the answer to question (i), which was to apply
prospectively, was intended to guide decisions in future
cases making it imperative that the employer has to
furnish such report to the delinquent employee, no

8
matter who the employer is, what the rules say or
whether the delinquent employee asks for it. Whatever
be the legal (non) requirement or the factual position,
the report has to be furnished. That is the law. The
report has to be furnished because it is an integral part
of natural justice and consideration of the report
behind the back of the delinquent employee would
effectively deprive him of the protective shield of
‘reasonable opportunity to defend’ the charges. We are
anchored in our conviction that any other
interpretation of the Constitution Bench decision
would result in diluting the law declared therein.
52. We now sum up our understanding of the law
declared in B. Karunakar (supra) and answer the four
questions delineated in paragraph 26 (supra)
compositely. Reading the declaration of law by the
Constitution Bench regarding the imperative need to
furnish the report of enquiry to the delinquent
employee even when : (i) the relevant statutory rules
are silent or against it, (ii) the punishment to be
imposed is other than the punishment referred to in
clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, (iii) the
employee does not ask for it, and (iv) the burden is cast
on a private employer too, and the law requiring
furnishing of the report being made to operate
prospectively from the date the decision in Mohd.
Ramzan Khan (supra) was rendered, thereby
reinforcing the legal position that prevailed after the
GoI Act was enacted but became unsettled later, there
th
can be no two opinions that on and from 20
November, 1990 [i.e., when Mohd. Ramzan Khan
(supra) was decided] it is the mandatory requirement
of law that the report of enquiry has to be furnished to
the delinquent employee. Taking a cue from S.K.
Sharma (supra), we are inclined to the view that the
requirement of furnishing the report of enquiry, though
procedural, is of a mandatory character and the bogey
argument of the employer to apply the test of
‘prejudice’ when the report of enquiry is not furnished
cannot be of any avail to thwart the challenge of the
delinquent employee. Such test could call for
application, if from the facts and circumstances, it can
be established that the delinquent employee waived his

9
right to have the report furnished. Should satisfactory
explanation be not proffered by the employer for its
failure/omission/neglect to furnish the enquiry report,
that ought to be sufficient for invalidating the
proceedings and directing resumption from the stage of
furnishing the report. No proof of prejudice for breach
of a statutory rule or the principles of natural justice
and fair play need be proved, unless there is a waiver,
either express or by conduct, to of the right to receive
the report. And, it is only in specific and not in all
circumstances that proof of ‘prejudice’ ought to be
insisted upon.
11.Similarly, in Sabitri Dey alias Swasthi Dey and Others v. Union of
India and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1312, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reaffirmed the aforesaid position of law and observed as under:
“25. The principle of audi alteram partem, which
literally means that the other side must be heard, is
one of the two great limbs of natural justice. It is often
expressed in the maxim that no person shall be
condemned unheard. Its moral foundation was
famously explained in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of
Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180, where the Court
emphasised that even where a statute is silent, a person
whose rights or interests are likely to be affected must
ordinarily be afforded an opportunity of being heard.
The principle is, therefore, not a mere rule of technical
procedure. It is a rule of fair play in action.
26. This Court has repeatedly emphasised that the
rules of natural justice are meant to secure justice and
to prevent miscarriage of justice. In A.K. Kraipak v.
Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262, this Court explained
that these rules do not supplant the law, but
supplement it, and that their application depends upon
the framework of the statute and the nature of the
power being exercised. The said principle squarely
applies to proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunal,
which exercises quasi-judicial functions and returns an
opinion carrying serious civil consequences.

10
27. In Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (2003) 4 SCC 557,
this Court explained that adherence to natural justice
is of supreme importance where a quasi-judicial body
determines disputes or where administrative action
involving civil consequences is undertaken. The Court
further emphasised that notice is the first limb of the
rule of audi alteram partem. A notice must be precise
and must reasonably apprise the person of the case
which he or she has to meet”
12.In the present case, this Court finds that the competent authority has
proceeded to fasten monetary liability of Rs.15,80,763.56/- upon the
petitioner without undertaking a complete enquiry in the manner
contemplated under the Control Order, 2016. The records also do not
reveal that the petitioner was afforded an effective opportunity to rebut
the alleged shortage or to controvert the material relied upon against her.
The impugned orders, therefore, do not inspire confidence as having
been passed after a full-fledged enquiry satisfying the requirements of
procedural fairness.
13.This Court is conscious of the fact that it is not required to enter into the
disputed questions regarding the actual shortage of food grains or the
petitioner's liability. Those are essentially matters to be determined by
the competent authority upon appreciation of evidence. However, when
the decision-making process itself is found to be deficient and contrary
to the prescribed procedure, this Court, in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction, is justified in interfering with the impugned orders and
relegating the parties to the competent authority for fresh adjudication.
14.Consequently, the impugned orders dated 27.03.2023 and 24.04.2023 are
hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub- Divisional Officer

11
(Revenue), Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), for fresh consideration.
The concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall conduct a fresh
enquiry strictly in accordance with Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Before passing any final
order, the authority shall afford adequate and effective opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, permit her to produce all documents in her
defence, record the statements of all relevant witnesses whose evidence
is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy and thereafter
pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law.
15.It is further directed that the petitioner shall obtain the certified copy of
this order within one week from today and shall place the same before
the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Upon production of the
certified copy, the competent authority shall proceed with the enquiry
forthwith and shall make every endeavour to conclude the entire
proceedings and pass a final order within a period of 30 days from the
date of production of the certified copy of this order.
16.It is made clear that no further notice shall be required to be issued to the
concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) in pursuance of this order.
However, the competent authority shall issue appropriate notices to all
necessary and affected parties, including the petitioner and any other
person whose presence or evidence is considered necessary, so as to
ensure that the enquiry is conducted in a fair, transparent and
comprehensive manner within the aforesaid period.
17.The petitioner is also directed to extend full cooperation in the enquiry as
contemplated under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution

12
System (Control) Order, 2016. In the event the petitioner fails to
cooperate or deliberately delays the proceedings, it shall be open to the
competent authority to proceed further in accordance with law and pass
appropriate orders on the basis of the material available on record.
18.It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the allegations levelled against the petitioner or with regard to the
alleged shortage of food grains, and all questions of fact and law are left
open to be adjudicated independently by the competent authority without
being influenced by any observation contained in this order.
19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Priyanka

13
WPC No.2258/2023
Head Note
“Principles of Natural Justice means requirement of fair
and effective opportunity of hearing a person whose rights
and interests are adversely effected should be given
opportunity of hearing by furnishing of enquiry report and
material relied upon by the authority so that he may defend
himself properly.”