[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.P.S. Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10257
1 WP-15678-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 15678 of 2018
R.P.S. CHOUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Advocate for respondents.
Reserved on : 16/03/2026
Delivered on : 24/03/2026
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India takes exception to the order dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed
by the Managing Director/Appellate Authority, M.P. State Cooperative
Marketing Federation Ltd., Bhopal, whereby the appellate authority affirmed
the order dated 18.01.2011 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 12% from the petitioner.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:
2.1The petitioner was appointed in the respondent department in the
year 1981. During the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, while the petitioner
was posted as District Marketing Officer of Bhind, a scheme of distribution
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10257
2 WP-15678-2018
of sprinkler sets to farmers was implemented by the State Government
through the respondent Federation. As per the procedure prescribed under
the said scheme, farmers were required to deposit their contribution amount,
whereafter the sprinkler sets were supplied and the subsidy amount was
released by the Agriculture Department in the bank account of the farmer.
2.2It is the case of the petitioner that after deposit of the farmer's
contribution, the sprinkler sets were supplied to the beneficiary farmers
through the concerned godowns and delivery memos were issued in their
favour. Copies of the bills and delivery memos were also submitted to the
office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture for the purpose of receiving
subsidy under the scheme.
2.3The Agricultural Department thereafter carried out physical
verification of the sprinkler sets supplied to the farmers and, upon being
satisfied, released the subsidy amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was adjusted
in favour of the respondent Federation.
2.4It appears that a PIL bearing writ petition No.1690/2001 came to be
filed before this Court alleging that the sprinklers have not been supplied to
certain farmers and there has been misappropriation of funds. On account of
filing of the said PIL, an inquiry was conducted by the collector and a report
dated 15.10.2004 was prepared indicating that 21 agriculturists have not
received the sprinkler sets, on which, it appears that directions were issued in
the PIL to take action in accordance with law against the persons who have
been prima facie found guilty and in pursuance thereto, the Collector passed
an order dated 18.02.2005, whereby recovery of sum of Rs.1 lakh was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10257
3 WP-15678-2018
directed from the erstwhile District Marketing Officer through RRC.
2.5Therafter, a show cause notice dated 01.09.2005 was issued to the
petitioner alleging that sprinkler sets corresponding to the subsidy amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- were not supplied to certain farmers and therefore the said
amount was liable to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner
submitted his reply dated 20.09.2005 denying the allegations and stated that
the sprinkler sets had been duly supplied to the farmers.
2.6Thereafter, the petitioner was called for personal hearing on
11.01.2011 and the competent authority i.e., M.P. State Cooperative
Marketing Federation Ltd., Bhopal vide order dated 18.01.2011, held the
petitioner responsible for the alleged loss caused to the Federation and
directed recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of
12%. It was further directed that a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month be deducted
from the salary of the petitioner towards recovery of the said amount and in
case of shortfall, the remaining amount be recovered from his retiral dues.
2.7Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Managing Director of the respondent Federation. The said
appeal was decided vide order dated 09.04.2018 whereby the appellate
authority affirmed the order dated 18.01.2011. Challenging the aforesaid
orders dated 18.01.2011 and 09.04.2018, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
recovery of sum of Rs.1 lakh along with interest effected from the petitioner
on the basis of an order dated 18.02.2005 passed by the Collector is arbitrary
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10257
4 WP-15678-2018
and illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to
submit his reply before the Collector. He further submits that in response to
the show cause notice dated 01.09.2005, the petitioner submitted his reply on
20.09.2005 categorically denying the allegation and submitting that the Dy.
Director Agriculture, Bhind after physical verification through officers of the
Agriculture Department distributed the sprinkler sets to the farmers and the
sum of Rs.1 lakh subsidy was accordingly adjusted. The inquiry was
conducted after a period of nearly five years from the date of distribution of
the sprinkler sets which may not reveal correct results. The petitioner
accordingly submitted that he has discharged his duties sincerely and is not
liable to the recovery as directed. However, without taking into consideration
the reply submitted by the petitioner and nearly after a period of six years,
the order dated 18.01.2011 was passed whereby the recovery was directed
from the salary of the petitioner along with interest.
4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the recovery order
dated 08.01.2011 (Annexure-P/6), the stand taken by the petitioner is not at
all been considered. He further submits that even the appellate authority has
mechanically rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner without awaiting
the receipt of the inquiry report from the Collector Bhind forming basis of
direction for recovery. He, therefore, submits that the order of recovery and
the rejection of appellate order violates the principles of natural justice, as it
fails to consider the defense put forth by the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents, by
referring to the return filed, submits that due procedure was followed prior to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10257
5 WP-15678-2018
issuance of the order of recovery dated 18.01.2011 and inasmuch as show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner, his reply was received and he was
also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing but the petitioner failed to
produce any evidence to establish his innocence, and therefore, the order of
recovery was rightly passed on 18.01.2011 which was rightly affirmed vide
order dated 09.04.2018. He further submits that the action was taken against
the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by this Court in a PIL and,
therefore, does not call for any interference.
6. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
7. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
8. Records of the case indicate that the recovery proceedings were
instituted against the petitioner vide show cause notice dated 01.09.2005 in
pursuance to the order dated 18.02.2005 passed by the Collector, Bhind
(Annexure-P/3), wherein apart from certain government officials, the District
Marketing Officer (present petitioner) was also held guilty for
misappropriation of subsidy amount and by the said order, recovery of Rs.1
lakh from the District Marketing Officer was directed, whereas a recovery of
Rs.1,58,375/- was directed against M.P. State Agro Industries Development
Corporation Ltd., District Bhind.
9. The petitioner in his appeal placed on record as Annexure-P/7, has
taken a stand that the recovery directed against M.P. State Agro Industries
Development Corporation Ltd., to the tune of Rs.1,58,375/- has been
challenged before this Court in W.P. No.4567/2005, wherein interim relief of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10257
6 WP-15678-2018
stay on recovery has been granted by this Court. During the pendency of the
present writ petition, the said W.P. No.4567/2005 (M.P. State Agro
Industries Development Corporation Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and Others) has
been finally decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
11.07.2013, which reads as under:
"A PIL was filed before this court in regard to illegality in
distribution of sprinkler sets to the farmers. This court issued
notices and thereafter an enquiry was conducted. During the
enquiry, it was found that some of the sprinkler sets had not been
distributed to the farmers.
This court vide order dt.2.3.2005 disposed of the PIL with the
following directions :-
"Since action has been taken, therefore we
dispose of this petition with a direction that
the authority concerned shall also examine
whether there is criminal liability of the
erring officers and if it is found that they have
committed some offence, they may be
prosecuted."
Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
4.1.2005. It is mentioned in the show cause notice that in the
enquiry it was found that certain sprinkler sets were not distributed
to the farmers, however, some amount of beneficiaries was said to
be paid to the farmers and the amount of subsidy was paid to the
petitioner, hence, why the aforesaid amount of subsidy be not
recovered from the petitioner. Alongwith the show cause notice, a
list of farmers was filed, who did not receive sprinkler sets and the
amount of subsidy of Rs.12,500/- was also mentioned and
thereafter the impugned order of recovery has been passed.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing during the
enquiry neither the petitioner was a party in the PIL before this
court, hence, the order of recovery against the petitioner is illegal.
In the present case, an enquiry was conducted by the authority
in pursuance to the directions issued by this court and it was found
that certain farmers did not receive sprinkler sets and the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10257
7 WP-15678-2018
amount was misappropriated. The petitioner department also
received some portion of the amount. A show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner alongwith the list of persons, who were
recorded as receivers of the supplied to them. Thereafter, the
petitioner submitted its reply and after considering the same, the
order has been passed. In my opinion, there is no question of
regular enquiry because a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner and the petitioner submitted its reply. Specific names
have been mentioned in the list submitted alongwith the show
cause notice and the names of the farmers have also been
mentioned.
In such circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is
in accordance with law. I do not find any merit in this petition. It is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs."
10.Since the validity of the order dated 18.02.2005 imposing recovery
on the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1 lakh and on the M.P. State Agro
Industries Development Corporation Ltd., to the tune of Rs.1,58,375/- has
already been upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (supra) vide order
dated 11.07.2013 passed in W.P. No.4567/2005, and the action taken against
the petitioner vide order dated 18.01.2011 as affirmed in appeal vide
impugned order dated 09.04.2018 being only consequential, and since the
petitioner has been duly noticed and heard prior to passing the order
impugned, this Court has no reason to take a different view in the matter.
Accordingly, this Court being in agreement with the view taken by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.4567/2005, no case for
interference in the present writ petition is made out.
11.Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
12.Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10257
8 WP-15678-2018
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
