Rampal Singh Kharsan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

W.P.(S)No.5968/2016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.5968 of 2016 Rampal Singh Kharsan, S/o Late Shri Komal Singh Kharsan, aged about 59 years, Occupation Subedar (M) working under the Office of Superintendent of Police, Janjgir (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Home and Police Affairs, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. and Post Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Civil Line, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Inspector General of Police, Office of the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.)

4. The Secretary (Finance), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

5. The Director (Treasury, Audit and Accounts), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

6. The Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa, Tahsil and District Janjgir-Champa.

---- Respondents For Petitioner:

Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate.

For State/Respondents: - Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 07/11/2016

1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of recovery has been passed against the

W.P.(S)No.5968/2016 petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir without noticing the petitioner and giving opportunity of hearing to him to explain. He further submits that such an order has been passed on the back of the petitioner. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others1, Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others2 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2)3.

3. It is well settled that any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice save and except certain contingencies of cases, would be void and liable to be quashed.

4. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law for recovery of excess amount after noticing the petitioner.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma (2009) 3 SCC 475 2012 AIR SCW 4742 (2009) 4 SCC 299