Chattisgarh High Court
Yogendra Kumar Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 September, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2753 of 2018
1 - Yogendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Shri Bhagwat Prasad Dewangan,
Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Sub Engineer, Municipal
Corporation, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban
Administration And Development, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post
Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Under Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development,
Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya
Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate holding the
brief of Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate
For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
04.09.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s) :
"i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the impugned recovery order dated 1/3/2017
(Annexure - P/1) bearing No. F 4-18/2010/18 passed by
the respondent No.2.
ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to refund the entire
amount which has already been recovered from the
salary of the petitioner.
iii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the
petitioner.
iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner,
in the interest of justice.
2. Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Sub-
Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Korba. He would further submit that
the article of charge was issued on 22.05.2013 to the petitioner with
the allegations that while he was posted as Sub-Engineer in Nagar
Panchayat, Kharod, he released the excess amount to the contractor
and caused loss to the Nagar Panchayat to the tune of Rs.7,57,793/-
and Rs.2,06,818/-. He would contend that the disciplinary authority
inflicted penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative
effect vide order dated 01.03.2017. He would further contend that on
the same date, respondent No.1 issued a separate order proposing
recovery of excess payment made to the contractor. He would argue
that the petitioner was already inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of
two increments with non-cumulative effect, therefore, there was no
occasion or reason for respondent No.1 to issue separate order
proposing recovery without holding any inquiry and without affording
any opportunity of hearing, therefore, order dated 01.03.2017 vide
Annexure P/1 is bad in law. He would pray to allow this petition. In
support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Ajeet Singh Jat Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in WPS No.4980 of 2009
decided on 01.07.2021.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would
oppose the submissions made by Mr.Panda. She would submit that
the petitioner has caused financial loss to the Nagar Panchayat to the
tune of Rs.7,57,793/- and Rs.2,06,818/-, therefore, order of recovery
has been issued by respondent No.1. She would further submit that
the petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing in the departmental
inquiry. She would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
5. The documents would reveal that while the petitioner was posted at
Nagar Panchayat, Kharod, he released excess payment to one
contractor and therefore, article of charge with similar allegations were
issued to the petitioner.
6. The allegations are as under :
"(अ) गौरव पथ में डब्ल्यू, बी. एम. एवं डामरीकरण कार्यः- अर्थवर्क ,
मुरूम कं सालीडेशन, डब्ल्यू. बी.एम. एवं बी.टी. कार्य के आयटमों में
किये गये वास्तविक कार्य से माप पुस्तिका में अधिक माप दर्ज किये जाने
के कारण राशि रूपये 7,57,793/- का अधिक भुगतान होना पाया गया।
(ब) सी. आर. स्टोन मेसनरी नाली निर्माणः- स्टोन मेसनरी नाली
निर्माण के खुदाई कार्य, सैंड फिलिंग, सीमेंट कांकिट एम-10 तथा मिट्टी
डिस्पोजल कार्य के लिये किये गये वास्तविक कार्य से माप पुस्तिका में
अधिक माप दर्ज किया गया है। रिनफोर्समेंट स्टील हेतु एस.ओ.आर. दर
से अधिक दर पर मूल्यांकन किया गया। इस कारण इस कार्य हेतु राशि
रूपये 2,06,818/- का अधिक भुगतान होना पाया गया।"
7. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and penalty
of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was passed
by respondent No.1 vide order dated 01.03.2017.
8. On the same date, separate order was issued by respondent No.1
proposing recovery against the petitioner. In the order impugned, the
figure has not been disclosed. It is also evident from the material
available on record, no inquiry was conducted against the petitioner
and opportunity of hearing was also not afforded.
9. In the matter of Ajeet Singh Jat (supra), the Coordinate Bench held
as under :
"21.There is one more reason for not upholding the
order of the Collector dated 7-7-2009. On the date of
the order directing recovery of money i.e. 7-7-2009, the
petitioner has already been inflicted with minor penalty
by order dated 6-12-2008 for the said misconduct by
the competent authority which the petitioner has
challenged in the earlier writ petition. Therefore, for one
act of misconduct, a Government servant cannot be
inflicted with two minor penalties simultaneously, one is
withholding of two increments with non-cumulative
effect and another is recovery of ₹ 1,01,655-50 ps.
which fall within 'minor penalties' under Rule 10(iii) and
(iv) of the Rules of 1966. As such, imposition of two
minor penalties for one act of misconduct cannot
stand together and they are liable to be quashed."
10.Considering the fact that the departmental inquiry was conducted and
penalty of stoppage of two increments was passed, therefore, there
was no reason or occasion for respondent No.1 to issue a fresh order
with regard to recovery which would amount to double jeopardy and a
person cannot be penalized twice for one offence. Accordingly, order
dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petition is
allowed. The amount which has already been recovered shall be
refunded to the petitioner forthwith.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
