Mani Ram Sahu vs . State Of Chhattisgarh

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner calling in question the notice dated 12/08/2016 (Annexure P/1) by which an amount of Rs.

1,63,000/Â​ is sought to be recovered from the petitioner.

Ms. Reena Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner and without undergoing

the procedure prescribed in Regulation 128 of Chhattisgarh Rajya Vanvikas Nigam Ltd. Employees Service Regulations, 1984, an amount of Rs.

1,63,000/Â has been recovered from the petitioner, some of it from his salary and the rest of it by withholding his gratuity, which is unsustainable and

bad in law.

Mr. A.S. Kacchwaha, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, would submit that Annexure P/1 is only a show cause notice and Rule 128 of

the Regulations of 1984 of has to be followed for awarding minor penalty (if any) but on account of interim order, it has not been proceeded.

I have heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, it is vivid that the impugned notice is only a show cause notice and it

is not an order of recovery.

The instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of giving liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law and if an amount of Rs.

1,63,000/Â has been recovered from the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, either from his salary or from gratuity pursuant to the

impugned notice (Annexure P/1), the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of one month. However, this should not preclude the

respondents to proceed in accordance with law after undergoing the procedure under Regulation 128 of the Regulations of 1994. No cost(s).