Chhattisgarh High Court
WPS/10/2020 of CHITRASEN SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 30 August 2026
of 2020 CGHC010440202019 2026:CGHC:38386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10 of 2020 Chitrasen Sahu S/o Shri Sukhchain Ram Sahu, Aged About 59 Years, Working As Lecturer And Posted At Government Higher Secondary School Pachpedi, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner
CGHC010440202019
2026:CGHC:38386
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 10 of 2020
Chitrasen Sahu S/o Shri Sukhchain Ram Sahu, Aged About 59
Years, Working As Lecturer And Posted At Government Higher Secondary School Pachpedi, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Raipur, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Joint Director Treasury And Pension Department Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. District Education Officer Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
5. Principal Government Higher Secondary School Pachpedi, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For State :- Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 31.08.2026
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of recovery made in the service book (Annexure P/1). ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH
2. Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that note made in the service book directing recovery is unsustainable and bad in law as the same was directed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
3. Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State counsel, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned order (Annexure P/1).
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner order was passed in the service book of the petitioner with regard to recovery (Annexure P/1), which is against the principle of natural justice. As such, the order directing recovery (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. However, competent authority / respondents are at liberty to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. With the aforesaid observation / direction the instant writ petition stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge Ankit