A departmental enquiry is unnecessary under Rule 16 when the employee does not dispute the underlying loss.

The appellant, Chandrapal Singh, was working as Assistant Prikriya Prabhari/In-charge of the Processing Centre, Sagar, and retired on 26.02.2021.

During his tenure, a show-cause notice dated 29.12.2020 was issued alleging lapses in the verification, fumigation, maintenance, and safeguarding of stored seeds.

The appellant submitted a reply denying responsibility and attributing the lapse to his predecessor and subordinate staff.

Subsequently, respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 07.12.2023 imposing recovery of ₹50,296, representing 20% of the alleged total loss of ₹2,51,481 caused by damage to 110.50 quintals of seeds.

The appellant challenged the recovery order in W.P. No. 8384 of 2024, but the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 08.08.2025. The present writ appeal was filed against that decision.

Whether recovery could be imposed upon the appellant after his retirement on the basis of a show-cause notice and reply, without conducting a regular departmental enquiry, when the appellant disputed his responsibility for the loss.

Whether the recovery order violated the principles of natural justice, was arbitrary, or was disproportionate in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the principle in O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 180, requiring an enquiry where factual charges are denied, applied to the present case.

The Court applied Rule 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, concerning proceedings for minor penalties and the opportunity to submit a defence.

It relied on the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a delinquent employee be given notice and a reasonable opportunity to explain the allegations.

The Court considered O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 180, which holds that where factual charges are specifically denied, an enquiry may be necessary even in proceedings involving a minor penalty; however, the Court distinguished that principle where the underlying occurrence is admitted and only responsibility is explained or disputed.

The Court held that the appellant had been served with a show-cause notice under Rule 16 and had submitted a reply, thereby receiving an adequate opportunity to defend himself.

Although he denied personal responsibility, he did not dispute that the seeds had been destroyed due to infestation by mites and pests.

The Court therefore treated the occurrence of the loss as undisputed and found that the competent authority was entitled to determine negligence on the basis of the available material without a separate regular enquiry.

The Court further noted that, after assuming charge, the appellant remained responsible for the godown, did not communicate to higher authorities the need for preventive measures despite the possibility of infestation, and the infestation was detected approximately four months thereafter.

These circumstances supported the finding of negligence.

O.K. Bhardwaj was distinguished because, unlike that case, the appellant had not denied the foundational fact of destruction of the seeds and had been afforded an opportunity to explain his position.

The recovery of only 20% of the total loss was also considered neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.

The Court found that the appellant had been given a sufficient opportunity to respond and that the competent authority had validly fastened liability for 20% of the assessed loss.

The order dated 08.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge was upheld, and the writ appeal was dismissed.