High Court of Himachal Pradesh Affirms Precedent, Reiterates Due Process Mandate for Recovery Proceedings Against Employees
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWPOA/4678/2019 of Ravinder Kumar Vs STATE OF HP |
| CNR | HPHC010416342019 |
| Date of Registration | 12-12-2019 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice Ranjan Sharma) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Himachal Pradesh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service law / Administrative law / Education sector |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court holds that recovery of alleged loss from a Class-III employee, such as a teacher serving as Member Secretary of an SMC, is impermissible unless supported by cogent proof from a regular departmental inquiry as per CCS (CCA) Rules. Discrepancy in assessment reports, in absence of inquiry, cannot be the sole basis for liability. Further, in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or proven misconduct, any order of recovery is arbitrary, violates natural justice, and is contrary to binding precedent; such orders are liable to be quashed. The Court relies upon Supreme Court authority which prohibits arbitrary recoveries, especially from low-ranking staff, and reaffirms that penalty via recovery must follow due process. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a Junior Basic Teacher and ex-officio Member Secretary of the School Management Committee (SMC), was subjected to recovery of Rs.39,213 by the State, on the ground of alleged shortfall in construction expenditure for a school room. Assessments of expenditure varied in official reports, yet liability was fastened solely on the petitioner without departmental inquiry or proof of misconduct. The teacher denied liability citing statutory protection under the RTE Act and lack of authority for such recovery procedures by the department. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; State authorities and disciplinary bodies in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals addressing recovery from government employees; authorities nationwide dealing with similar service law issues |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the legal requirement of conducting a regular departmental inquiry before any recovery can be made from Class-III government employees for alleged loss or misconduct.
- Holds that discrepancies in expense assessment reports do not, by themselves, justify recovery without due process or inquiry.
- Applies Supreme Court precedent strictly, making recovery orders unenforceable when due process, including issuing charge memorandum, inviting reply, and conducting inquiry, is not followed.
- Clarifies that allegations must be proved in inquiry or criminal proceedings; mere allegations or administrative findings without inquiry do not suffice.
- Confirms that, following Rafiq Masih and subsequent Supreme Court cases, recoveries from Class-III/Class-IV staff on arbitrary or unproven grounds are “arbitrary, illegal, iniquitous,” and liable to be quashed.
- Orders made in denial of natural justice or in breach of statutory rules (CCS (CCA) Rules) are unsustainable.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court found that orders for recovery of Rs.39,213 from the petitioner, a government teacher, were passed solely based on reassessment reports which differed in their quantification of expenditure, and that liability was fixed without any regular departmental inquiry.
- The Court examined the statutory framework, particularly the composition and mandate of School Management Committees under Section 21 of the RTE Act, noting that multiple members–parents, teachers, local representatives–were involved, and no inquiry or opportunity for explanation had been given to the committee as a whole.
- Citing Supreme Court decisions in Food Corporation of India v. Sarat Chandra Goswami (2014) and Rafiq Masih (2015), the judgment reiterated that recovery from low-ranking employees (Class-III/Class-IV) is impermissible without established proof via a departmental inquiry, proper issuance of charge sheets, opportunity to reply, and compliance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (CCS (CCA) Rules).
- The Court noted that recovery in the present case amounted to a penalty imposed without following required procedure under Rules 14 and 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules; no charge memorandum or inquiry was conducted, nor was any misconduct proved.
- The judgment refers to Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack (2025 SCC Online SC 724), which aligns with SC precedent, emphasizing no recovery can be made absent fraud, misrepresentation, or proven misconduct.
- The plea that the amount was spent without higher authority’s permission was rejected for lack of supporting evidence or minimum documentary basis.
- The Court concluded that recoveries made solely on administrative fiat, without opportunity or proof, are arbitrary and illegal, and ordered the impugned recovery to be set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The work was executed as per the Junior Engineer’s assessment and instructions, not by the teacher independently.
- The petitioner was a teacher and could not be saddled with non-educational responsibilities or liabilities without proper procedure.
- Recovery without departmental inquiry, proof of misconduct, or compliance with CCS (CCA) Rules was illegal and violative of statutory protections under the RTE Act.
- Discrepancies in different assessment reports cannot be the basis for fixing liability.
- The petitioner denied all liability in detailed replies to departmental notices.
Respondents (State)
- The SMC had spent Rs.30,000/- towards BALA features without requisite permission.
- The final 10% payment for construction was released in breach of the relevant instructions and agreement.
- Subsequent reassessment showed lower actual expenditure than sanctioned/claimed amount, justifying recovery from those responsible, including the petitioner, as ex-officio Member Secretary of the SMC.
- Opposed petition and defended the legality of recovery, contending recovery was warranted by shortfall in expenditure.
Respondent No. 6 (Deputy Project Officer)
- Confirmed that an amount was sanctioned for construction and work was expected to be completed at the earliest, per SMC resolution.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a Junior Basic Teacher, served as ex-officio Member Secretary of the School Management Committee (SMC) of GPS Jol. The SMC resolved to construct an additional classroom with BALA features, for which the Government sanctioned Rs. 3,15,000/-. After reports and complaints regarding possibly inflated or inaccurate expenditure, several reassessments were conducted, each yielding different figures. Based on these discrepancies, departmental authorities issued orders directing recovery of Rs. 39,213 solely from the petitioner. The petitioner challenged these orders, asserting lack of due process and statutory protection from arbitrary recovery.
Statutory Analysis
- Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act): Section 21 establishes SMCs as statutory bodies with multi-member structure and vests responsibility jointly; Section 24 and Section 27 restrict teachers from being saddled with non-educational duties and liabilities.
- CCS (CCA) Rules: Recovery/penalty against a government servant (including Class-III employees) must strictly follow Rule 14 (departmental inquiry for major penalty) and Rule 16 (summary procedure for minor penalties); process involves issuing a memorandum of charges, opportunity to reply, and departmental inquiry if charges are disputed.
- The Court applied these statutory requirements strictly, holding that any deviation–such as direct recovery on administrative grounds–is contrary to law.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment. The matter was heard and decided by a single judge (Justice Ranjan Sharma).
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural innovations were set; however, the Court reinforced the requirement of due compliance with statutory departmental procedures before imposing any recovery or penalty on employees.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent on service law and employee recoveries was strictly followed and applied.