Recovery orders passed with a predetermined mind and without a hearing violate natural justice.

The petitioners filed consolidated writ petitions challenging departmental orders dated 30 September 2019 and consequential recovery orders, alleging that the orders were made without a hearing and in breach of natural justice.

The petitions sought certiorari to quash those orders; W.P.(MD) No. 25041 of 2019 challenged separate treasury orders.

At the hearing, petitioners’ counsel relied on an earlier order in W.P.(MD) No. 25122 of 2019, and the Additional Government Pleader stated that remand on similar lines was acceptable.

1. Whether the impugned orders were liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice and predetermination.

2. Whether the matters should be remitted to the respondents for fresh consideration after notice and a personal hearing.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, requiring a fair opportunity to respond before an adverse decision is made, and the requirement that the decision-maker approach the matter without predetermining the outcome.

The judgment cites no statute. It refers to the order in W.P.(MD) No. 25122 of 2019, dated 14 February 2022, which contemplated consideration of objections and a fresh final order.

The Court found that the impugned order demonstrated “absolute predetermination” on the respondents’ part.

In light of that finding, and the respondents’ position that the matter could be remanded, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed a fresh process that included disclosure of adverse communications, an opportunity to submit explanations, and a personal hearing.

The writ petitions were partly allowed and disposed of.

The respondents may issue fresh show-cause notices annexing relevant adverse communications.

The petitioners may respond within four weeks of receiving notice, after which the respondents must provide a personal hearing and pass fresh orders.

No adverse action may be taken against the petitioners in the meantime.