Recovery of government dues from retired employees without following statutory procedure violates the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a retired Forest Ranger (retired on 31.07.2011), challenged an order dated 19.11.2012 and a letter dated 28.09.2015 directing the recovery of ₹1,38,400/- for unadjusted government advances

The Department alleged that the petitioner failed to provide acceptable vouchers for expenses incurred during his service despite several show-cause notices issued between 2011 and 2012

The petitioner contended he never received these notices and that the recovery was ordered after his retirement without following the statutory procedure established under the service rules

The State produced a DAK Book entry as proof of service for one notice, which the petitioner disputed as it lacked his signature and was dated post-retirement

1. Whether the recovery of government dues from a retired employee was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and Rule 65 of the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976?

2. Whether the impugned recovery order is sustainable if the service of show-cause notices is not substantiated by evidence?

The court primarily applied Rule 65 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which mandates that government servants must clear dues before retirement and provides specific mechanisms for recovery—either via cash deposit or deduction from gratuity—if dues are ascertainable

the court applied the principle of natural justice, requiring that no adverse order (specifically financial recovery) be passed without providing the employee with a fair opportunity to be heard and following due process of law

The court found that the department failed to prove that the petitioner was properly served with the show-cause notices. Specifically, the respondent admitted that no acknowledgment existed for the notice dated 27.07.2011, and the DAK Book entry (Annexure R/1) for the notice dated 22.10.2011 did not bear the petitioner's signature

The court noted that because the petitioner disputed receiving the notices and presented his own vouchers (Annexure P/7) which the department summarily rejected, the recovery was arbitrary

Applying Rule 65 of the Rules of 1976, the court reasoned that any recovery made from a retired servant must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedural safeguards. Since the department failed to demonstrate that they followed the due process of law or the specific steps outlined in Rule 65, the recovery order was deemed legally unsustainable

The court granted the respondents the liberty to initiate fresh recovery proceedings, provided they strictly follow the procedure established under Rule 65 of the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. The petition was disposed of accordingly