Non-supply of relied-upon enquiry reports violates natural justice, rendering recovery orders legally unsustainable.

The Appellants (Sarpanch, Secretary, and Salesman) challenged an order dated 23.08.2023 passed by a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which dismissed their writ petition.

The case originated from a complaint regarding stock shortages in a Fair Price Shop at Gram Panchayat Konargarh.

Following two preliminary enquiries by the Food Inspector, the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Pamgarh, issued a recovery order against the Appellants on 21.06.2023—the same day the second enquiry report was submitted.

The Appellants contended that they were never supplied with the enquiry reports or calculation sheets, were denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and that the S.D.O. passed a mechanical, unreasoned order in violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the recovery order dated 21.06.2023 was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the non-supply of enquiry reports and lack of a fair hearing.

2. Whether the S.D.O.’s order was a "speaking order" reflecting independent application of mind.

3. Whether the Single Judge erred in affirming the recovery under Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, despite alleged procedural impropriety.

The Court emphasized the fundamental principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing and the "rule against dictation," which requires adjudicatory authorities to exercise independent judgment.

It relied on Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 3 SCC 727, establishing that the non-supply of enquiry reports to a delinquent party vitiates the proceedings.

Furthermore, it cited Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 regarding the mandatory requirement for authorities to pass reasoned/speaking orders.

The Court also referenced Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial Tax Officer (AIR 1958 SC 667) regarding the necessity of independent application of mind and the statutory framework of Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The Division Bench found that the S.D.O. passed the recovery order on the very same day the Food Inspector submitted the second enquiry report (21.06.2023), which demonstrated a lack of adequate opportunity for the Appellants to respond and a failure of the authority to apply its mind independently.

The Court noted that the enquiry reports and calculation sheets—the primary basis for the recovery—were admittedly never supplied to the Appellants.

This omission rendered the mere issuance of a show-cause notice a legal "empty formality".

The Bench observed that since the order entailed civil consequences (financial recovery), the non-supply of vital documents struck at the root of fairness in the decision-making process.

Consequently, the Single Judge’s order affirming the S.D.O.'s action was found to be legally unsustainable.

The matter was remanded to the S.D.O. for fresh consideration.

The S.D.O. was directed to consider the Appellants' reply, afford them a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, and pass a fresh, reasoned order within four weeks.

The operation of the recovery order dated 21.06.2023 was ordered to remain in abeyance for six weeks to facilitate this process.