Recovery Order Passed Without Inquiry or Opportunity of Hearing Violates Principles of Natural Justice and Is Untenable.

The petitioner, an Assistant Grade III (Dispatch Clerk) at Municipal Council Janjgir Naila, challenged an order dated 11/01/2019

Following a previous High Court direction in Abdul Jahir v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 4301/2018), Respondent No. 3 was ordered to pay retiral dues with interest to a retired employee

Respondent No. 3 subsequently held the petitioner and one other employee responsible for the delay in processing the pension case and issued the impugned order directing the recovery of half of the interest amount (Rs. 74,011/-) from the petitioner’s salary

The petitioner contended that the recovery was ordered without conducting an inquiry or providing an opportunity of hearing

1. Whether the recovery order passed by Respondent No. 3 against the petitioner is legally sustainable in the absence of a departmental inquiry or a hearing.

The Court applied the fundamental Principle of Natural Justice, specifically the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which necessitates that no person shall be condemned unheard.

It further relied on the civil service jurisprudence which dictates that punitive recoveries or orders entailing civil consequences cannot be passed against a government servant without conducting a formal inquiry and affording a reasonable opportunity to show cause

The Court observed that while the respondent authority was complying with a judicial mandate to pay interest to a retiree, it arbitrarily shifted the financial burden onto the petitioner

The Court found that Respondent No. 3 summarily held the petitioner responsible for the administrative delay without substantiated evidence through a fact-finding process

Since the impugned order resulted in a direct financial loss (civil consequence) to the petitioner, the failure to issue a notice or conduct an inquiry rendered the administrative action procedurally "unsustainable and bad in law"

and a clear "violation of principle of natural justice"

It quashed the impugned recovery order dated 11/01/2019

The Court held that a recovery of interest paid by the State cannot be shifted to an employee without due process.

However, the Court granted Respondent No. 3 liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law, provided they follow the prescribed legal and disciplinary procedures