Recovery orders set aside where liability was imposed without a fair enquiry under Clause 16.

The petitioner, Sarpanch and manager of Government Fair Price Shop ID No. 532004070 at Khandhaura, challenged the orders dated 27 March 2023 and 24 April 2023, by which the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur, directed recovery of ₹5,58,473.79 for alleged shortage of food grains.

The petitioner contended that the liability was determined on the basis of physical verification without supplying the physical-verification report or Panchnama, and without conducting a proper enquiry under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

The State asserted that physical verification conducted on 4 November 2022 revealed the shortage, that a Panchnama was prepared, and that a show-cause notice dated 9 December 2022 was issued and answered by the petitioner on 20/21 March 2023 before the recovery order was passed.

During the writ proceedings, interim protection against recovery was granted after the Court noted a prima facie failure of the State to demonstrate that an effective opportunity of hearing had been afforded.

1. Whether the recovery orders dated 27 March 2023 and 24 April 2023 were passed in accordance with the enquiry procedure prescribed under Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the recovery orders were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly for failure to disclose the relied-upon material and provide an effective opportunity to rebut the alleged shortage.

3. Whether the existence of an alternative statutory appeal under Clause 18 barred the petitioner from invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Clause 16 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which requires a proper enquiry before liability for alleged irregularities or shortages is determined.

It also applied the principles of natural justice, holding that where civil consequences follow—particularly recovery of public money—the affected person must receive a fair, transparent and meaningful hearing, including disclosure of the material relied upon, a reasonable opportunity to controvert the allegations, an opportunity to produce evidence, examination of relevant witnesses where necessary, and a reasoned decision.

Although Clause 18 provides a statutory remedy of appeal, the Court recognized that writ jurisdiction may be exercised where the impugned decision-making process is alleged to be procedurally unfair or violative of natural justice.

The Court found that the respondents relied on the physical-verification report, Panchnama and show-cause notice, but the record did not satisfactorily establish that a comprehensive enquiry compliant with Clause 16 had been conducted.

The material also did not demonstrate that the petitioner had been supplied the relevant documents or given an effective opportunity to rebut the alleged shortage and contest the evidence relied upon against him.

Since the monetary liability of ₹5,58,473.79 was fastened without adherence to the prescribed procedure and procedural fairness, the defect lay in the decision-making process itself.

The Court therefore considered interference under Article 226 justified, while leaving the factual question of actual shortage and the petitioner’s liability for determination by the competent authority in a fresh enquiry.

The matter was remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur, for a fresh enquiry strictly under Clause 16 of the 2016 Control Order.

The authority was directed to provide effective hearing, permit production of defence documents, record the statements of relevant witnesses, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The petitioner was directed to produce the certified copy of the judgment within one week, and the authority was directed to endeavour to conclude the proceedings within 30 days thereafter.

The petitioner was required to cooperate, failing which the authority could proceed on the available material in accordance with law.

The Court expressly left all questions of fact and law open and made no finding on the alleged shortage or the petitioner’s ultimate liability.

No order as to costs was made.